Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Rupa Huq and Ben Wallace

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Platforms such as JustGiving are behaving in a very uncharitable way. The Minister has an “It’ll be all right on the night” policy, but I am reminded of when in 2017—my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe was with us then—the same argument was made about the public register of beneficial interests. The Minister on that occasion said, “Let them do it on their own,” but public opinion forced the Government to climb down. I urge Government Members to join my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. Even The Sun has backed this campaign—

[Mr Wallace]

Even The Sun!

[Dr Huq]

Even The Sun newspaper, which normally is not really friendly to the Labour party. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work and I hope that the Minister will think again.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Rupa Huq and Ben Wallace

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Huq]

What I would say is that the hon. Gentleman needed to bear with me and hear what I was going to say as I developed my argument. I had barely finished my first sentence. If he bears with me, I will give examples of other communities, too—not just Muslims, of course. We do not want this to be a cover for people to do their illicit deeds. If he will bear with me, I would like to continue.

I would like to give two observations from the coalface to the Minister. Both the Minister and the shadow Minister go and see these projects all the time, I am sure. In the last week and a half, without my trying, I have come across two examples in our Prevent team at Ealing Council—the London borough of Ealing gets quite a lot of funding for this. The first example was the week before last. I had convened an interfaith meeting at our town hall. I go to a lot of civic services, because we have two synagogues, two mosques, loads of churches, Baha’is and all sorts of faith groups, and they all talk to me, but they do not talk to each other. My idea, therefore, was to bring them together in a room to see what sort of things they are doing—food banks and other services—but it is not a theological group. I had the Prevent officer there, but she was rounded on by some Muslims from one of our mosques, who said that Ealing council is getting a reputation for being Islamophobic. One group, MEND—it stands for Muslim Engagement and Development, and I have met some of its members in Parliament—had wanted to hold a meeting at the town hall, but had been banned by the Prevent team because red flags had been raised about it after a Channel 4 “Dispatches” documentary. I think the programme was called “Who Speaks for British Muslims?”

Banning the group was seen as an overreaction, because the programme was just a bit of shoddy and sensationalist journalism. There are always bad apples in any group—as in any political party, because we can be umbrellas for different interests—but people felt that it was a bit much to ban the group MEND, whose aim is to combat Islamophobia. People from MEND have been in this building, Portcullis House, to see me. They gave me a whole dossier, and were anticipating the attack, saying, “We’ve got a point-by-point rebuttal of the programme, which is coming out next week.” Again, that gave Prevent a bad name.

Sometimes these groups form an alphabet soup of acronyms, and some of them are a bit voguish and flavour of the month. The poor Prevent officer at my meeting had all these people saying, “Ealing council is Islamophobic”, and, although Channel and all the other bits deal with the far right and so on, perhaps Prevent falls disproportionately on Muslims. That is why a review is a good idea, and that is all my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen is asking for—a sensible review to take stock and to see whether the strategy is working.

My second example is from this weekend when I was at the Somali Advice and Development Centre which was celebrating receiving a Queen’s award. This SADC group in my constituency, which actually operates borough-wide, channels people away not only from extremism but from criminal activities generally—at the weekend the group was talking about knife crime a lot. Again, the Prevent officer was at the celebration. A young Somali girl said to me, in hushed tones, that Prevent did not trust them at all, not as far as it could throw them. She even works for the local authority in another guise, so she is a public servant, but she mentioned another group, Cage—the one that deals with prisoners—and said that she would rather deal with it than Prevent any day. Cage dealt with Moazzam Begg. Again, the Prevent officer’s face dropped, saying, “No, that’s on our banned list.”

[Mr Wallace]

I have listened to and understand the hon. Lady’s case. Much of what she says is genuine, but before she goes down the Cage line, she is right that there are groups and groups. I do not want her to wander inadvertently into thinking that Cage is some small representative of prisoner groups. The leadership of Cage praised Jihadi John as an individual before a Committee of this House. If there is one group that seeks to undermine Prevent for the wrong reasons—there are people who oppose Prevent for perfectly valid reasons—it is Cage, which would take the view that it is anti-state. Cage wants nothing from the state, including Prevent. It is one of the groups, similar to some of the far-right groups, that would like us to have a less integrated society and less of a common-values platform. She is perfectly right to express other concerns, but she should be cautious about Cage. I would never say that I would rather deal with Cage than Prevent. It would be a slippery slope.

[The Chair]

Before I call the hon. Lady to resume her remarks, I remind the Committee that at the beginning of the sitting I said that if comments were wide ranging, we would not have a clause stand-part debate. Given that she is ranging quite widely from the wording of the amendment, I shall probably not have a separate clause stand part, so she should be mindful of that as she carries on with her remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

We need a Prevent strategy on wine gums. The importance of publishing the data is to indicate how Prevent fits into broader safeguarding, putting it into perspective and challenging a number of the myths. How it fits into broader safeguarding is in the simple numbers: 7,000 Prevent referrals a year, of which just over half are youths under the age of about 25, I think, compared with 621,000 safeguarding referrals every year from teachers, social workers and health clinicians when dealing with everything from sexual and domestic abuse to a wider range of other types of safeguarding. So it is not the mass spying exercise that some critics allege it is.

[Dr Huq]

Taking on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark that those categories were stratified, taking account of some mental health issues, the Exeter Giraffe would-be nail bomber Nicky Reilly had quite serious Asperger’s syndrome. The inquest has not been done, but he has since died in Manchester prison. He was a convert, and that is something else that concerns me. The point has been made to me that a lot of these famous cases involve converts, including Richard Reid the shoe bomber; and Khalid Masood, who attacked us here in Westminster, was born Adrian. Converts and mental illness are an issue.

[Mr Wallace]

I would be happy to talk to the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton afterwards about the details of terrorists’ profiles rather than the Prevent element, but I would be ruled out of order if I wandered into that. The main issue about the Prevent duty was that within the numbers, we obviously see a significant number of young people. We see more people who are vulnerable, depending on the type of attack in which they are involved. To answer part of the point that the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton made, there is a higher number of significant mental health issues in lone wolves than there is in complex attack planners. Going back to the point about being vulnerable and radicalised and groomed in streaming: they may be loners, they may be on their own, and they may not have a wide friends network. We certainly see that.

The other reason I wanted to publish the data was to counter some of the myths, including the myth of there being a widespread spying operation. Clearly, Prevent is not that, if you compare it with the wider safeguarding of hundreds of thousands. Another part of the Prevent programme was to show that some of the myths peddled are the enemies of the myths themselves. They get repeated time and again, and people say, “Well there is a perception problem and we have to have a review” or, “There’s something wrong with it.”

Two of the big current myths doing the rounds are: “I live in a terraced house”, about a referral in Lancashire. It was not a Prevent referral; the statement was in fact, “I live in a terraced house and my uncle beats me”. It was a domestic abuse referral and it never went near a Prevent officer or a police officer, but you will hear the likes of CAGE peddle that every single week and month, as well as some people who do not want to check their facts. Another myth refers to a child in Bedford caught playing with a toy gun, the mother arrived and apparently there was a great Prevent operation. That was not a Prevent referral at all. One of the strongest myths—I am afraid the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton repeated it—is that the Prevent guidance issued by the Home Office includes things like someone going to a mosque and someone with a beard. That is categorically not part of the training package, and not part of the Home Office information at all. It is however part of the propaganda spouted by CAGE in reference to what Prevent is about.

[Dr Huq]

Will the Minister look into the materials put out by the London borough of Hillingdon? It may not be Home Office guidance, but somewhere in the food chain it has been told to me that that is what they are pumping out.

[Mr Wallace]

Have you seen it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

The first step was to publish the information, discuss it with whomever we liked and ensure the Prevent statistics are all out there. They show that a large number of referrals into the Channel programme came from the far right and that this is a safeguarding policy for the benefit of us all, whether Muslim, middle class, in a community or diaspora. We know that the way people are being radicalised and the groomers doing it have no worries about following traditional routes. They will go wherever they can to groom victims.

The important thing about publishing that is to show those communities, to ask the hon. Gentleman to say to the MCB or others, “Look, here are the statistics. Here is what Prevent is doing in the north-east of England to prevent the extreme right wing dividing our community. Here are the actual numbers.”

That is the first step. The second step is broader engagement. I met the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton last week when he raised the issue of the MCB and others. I am open to examining some of the suggestions about how much we engage with many of those groups. I represent north Preston but, in a sense, I am not fussed where people come from; I am interested in where people are going.

There are some groups I am aware of—I have named CAGE—to which I do not want to give the credibility of a meeting, so that they can spout what they do. I know their agenda and it does not benefit the communities they say they represent. That is the way it is. There are other groups I would be happy to meet; I know some of them are taking strong steps. Going back to the Prevent review requirement, it is interesting that when many of those groups espouse their “Prevent”—what they would do—it is the same. It might not be called Prevent but it is the same; it is safeguarding.

I said the reason we do not review is because Prevent is always evolving; we are always reviewing it in a sense. There are measures in the Bill to broaden Prevent to include more input from local authorities. It is not just a police-led initiative. It would allow local authorities to be part of the process. We have to start the process by saying communities are often and strongly represented by their local authorities and the local authorities should be able to shape that.

That goes to the observation of several Opposition Members that Prevent is working in some parts though not so well in others. That is all about the characteristics of the community, how it has approached Prevent and its background. I find more settled Muslim communities much more engaged in Prevent than very new communities, which are worried about any kind of state because they have probably come from a state that oppressed them.

In Kirklees, Lancashire, where I was not long ago, they are very happy to be engaged. In Scotland, they have done some amazing stuff around broadening delivery of community safety. We should all learn from the knife crime work they have done in Glasgow. Budgets have been just as restricted and tough but they have managed to deliver successes. We want that to evolve.

I spoke to Andy Burnham not long ago. He is doing a review that is out soon on effective community cohesion and that impact. Appointing a reviewer of something that is moving and evolving, on a subject that is working the vast majority of the time, is not what is required at this moment. Yes, we should all do more work in separating the myth from the reality, for example, the myth I have heard that if someone has a beard they will be referred to Prevent. I believe if we do that we demonstrate the success: 500 people have come through Channel. People go into Channel when there are serious concerns about them and, out the other end of Channel, in two years, they are no longer of concern. That is 500 people who were a real threat to our safety and security on the streets. Those were not peripheral people but ones we had real concern about. It took one person to attack Westminster bridge; think of the impact that had.

I understand the position about having a review. I am delighted we no longer hear much, “Let’s get rid of the Prevent duty.” Some 12 months ago, that was the call from a lot of people; now we are talking about review.

[Dr Huq]

I am listening to what the Minister is saying about the statistical evidence to counter the myths and all that stuff. If he is dead set against an independent review, does he accept the point that if some of these Muslim groups felt they had a hand in the design, they would feel less that they were being picked on? The ones I have spoken to feel that there are a lot of converts who are all being tarred with the same brush, and it is not them.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Rupa Huq and Ben Wallace

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Huq]

Q I have another short question. Are the three of you aware of the Prevent programme having lost the confidence of certain communities? Do you have any comments on that?

Peter Carter: I was involved in training the counter-terrorism command when the Prevent policy started. I was an enthusiastic supporter of it, because it was subtle and very effective. It has gone slightly off track and lost the support of some communities. That is a great shame, because it really needs to be supported.

I shared a panel recently at the Law Society with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner; I am glad to say that she and I agreed about just about everything. One of those things was the importance of the Prevent strategy and of getting back the confidence of the communities, because their engagement in it is vital. As a concept, it is a vital part of fighting terrorism.

Abigail Bright: A very specific part of the community is the family doctor—the general practitioners. One only needs to look at The BMJ to see the concern expressed by medical practitioners about the Prevent programme. In principle, there is no resistance to it among the medical fraternity, but how it is executed and how it risks trespassing on medical confidentiality and trust between doctor and patient is a very discrete part of how it is problematic in the community.

[Mr Wallace]

GPs are not covered by the Prevent duty.

Abigail Bright: On another view, much training of general practitioners goes into how to deal with Prevent.

Criminal Finances Bill

Debate between Rupa Huq and Ben Wallace

Wednesday 26th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I just heard what you had to read through, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have 147 amendments, so I hope the Chair has changed by the time we have got through them. However, I do not think we will be taking them individually.

When we sent the Bill to the Lords some months ago, there was considerable cross-party consensus on its aims and measures. After exercising robust scrutiny, we made a number of amendments in this House, including the significant addition of the Magnitsky clause on gross human rights abuses and violations, which I believe significantly improves the legislation. I am pleased to say that the same consensus continued in the House of Lords and that the group before us consists only of Government amendments.

With Prorogation imminent, it is crucial that we get the many valuable powers in the Bill on to the statute book, including unexplained wealth orders, the seizure and forfeiture powers, and the offences of corporate failure to prevent tax evasion. I welcome the support of colleagues across the House to ensure that we can achieve that goal. Although there are 147 amendments in the group, I reassure hon. Members that they are to a great extent minor or technical changes that aim to enhance the operation of the Bill’s existing measures. I will briefly highlight some of the most significant measures.

Undoubtedly, the issue that received the most substantial scrutiny in the House of Lords was that of company ownership transparency in the British overseas territories with financial centres and the Crown dependencies. This topic is of great interest to right hon. and hon. Members in this House. As part of our international efforts to increase corporate transparency, the Government continue to work closely with our overseas territories and Crown dependencies to combat corruption and ensure that they implement the commitments they have made on law enforcement access to beneficial ownership data by the deadline of June this year.

I met the Chief Ministers of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man earlier this week to discuss their progress, and pressed again our ambition for transparent registers. Yesterday, I co-chaired a meeting of peers and the London representatives of the overseas territories, so that they could update us on their efforts so far.

Once the commitments have been implemented, they will put the UK and our overseas territories and Crown dependencies well ahead of most jurisdictions in terms of transparency, including many of our G20 partners and other major corporate and financial centres, including some states in the United States. As I have said previously, we should be proud of that fact and of the progress we have made since the anti-corruption summit last year. These arrangements will prevent criminals from hiding behind anonymous shell companies and bring significant benefits in terms of the capacity and information that UK law enforcement authorities will have at their disposal to tackle criminal activity and investigate bribery and corruption, money laundering and tax evasion.

It is right, however, that we review the effectiveness of the implementation to assess whether the arrangements are delivering the outcomes that we and our law enforcement agencies are after. That is why we amended the Bill in the House of Lords to require a statutory review of the progress made by the territories against their existing commitments. That report will be laid in Parliament, so that the House can revisit this issue as appropriate in due course.

Some peers and right hon. and hon. Members would have liked us to go further. However, as I have made clear, we are making considerable progress by working consensually with the territories and respect our constitutional settlements with them. The Government maintain that it would not be appropriate to force legislation on jurisdictions that are, to a great extent, self-governing. With Prorogation growing ever nearer, I welcome the fact that that amendment was strongly supported by peers of all parties. I trust that hon. Members will agree that it is a sensible way forward at this stage.

Turning to the provisions that were already in the Bill, we have made a number of amendments to the proposed operation of unexplained wealth orders. The hon. Members for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) raised concerns that the £100,000 threshold for the imposition of unexplained wealth orders could disadvantage law enforcement agencies in certain parts of the country, particularly where property values may be lower or the proceeds of crime more evenly shared out. The Northern Ireland Executive raised similar concerns. In the light of that, Lords amendments 2 and 15 will lower the threshold from £100,000 to £50,000, as was requested by the SNP. The threshold remains an important safeguard that will be considered by the court, along with other factors, before unexplained wealth orders can be made.

Following concerns raised in the Lords and by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) in evidence to the Public Bill Committee, further amendments were made in the Lords to ensure that unexplained wealth orders could be applied in relation to property held in trusts or other complex ownership arrangements, including through a foreign company. Those amendments will help to ensure that the orders have the greatest possible impact once law enforcement agencies can use them.

Lastly in relation to unexplained wealth orders, Lords amendments 11 and 33 provide for a compensation scheme in relation to the interim freezing orders that can accompany an order. Such a freezing order would be used to ensure that someone does not scarper while we go to court to put in place an order. We therefore need a compensation scheme, should the court decide an order is not appropriate. That is an important safeguard to circumscribe the use of such powers.

Hon. Members will recall that we extended the seizure and forfeiture powers in chapter 3 of part 1 on Report in the Commons to cover gaming vouchers and casino chips, following another concern raised by Opposition Members. Following a representation from the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, Lords amendments 47 to 49 and 91 to 93 will also allow law enforcement agencies to seize a betting slip where they suspect that the funds used to place the bet are the proceeds of crime. Those provisions will be subject to the same safeguards as those on cash seizure, and we will work with bookmakers and their trade associations to ensure that the measures are used effectively. I trust that hon. Members will welcome that further expansion of the powers.

On a related issue, Lords amendments 69 to 71 will allow for legal expenses to be deducted from any property recovered under the seizure and forfeiture powers, helping to ensure that they function effectively in practice.

Following discussions with banks and other regulated bodies, Lords amendment 36 will extend the period in which companies can share information with each other to tackle money laundering. At present, information sharing can take place for 28 days from the initial notification; we are extending that to 84 days. That takes account of more complex cases where, for example, numerous banks may have relevant information. It is a further sign of this Government’s commitment to working in partnership with the private sector to tackle money laundering. It will help to ensure that the information sharing provisions underpin the incredibly important work of the joint money laundering intelligence taskforce.

As I said at the outset, there are a number of other Lords amendments in the group that provide for minor or technical changes to the existing provisions. I do not expect that any of them will provoke significant concern among hon. Members, but I would, as ever, be happy to address specific queries during my closing remarks.

I hope that the House agrees that the amendments that have been made in the Lords improve the Bill, which, as I have said, has been the subject of significant cross-party support throughout its passage. The Bill, as amended, will ensure that law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing and to work as effectively as possible with the private sector on those crucial national security priorities.

We must, of course, remember that the Bill is only one element of the Government’s wider approach to tackling corruption and other serious and organised crime. I referred in earlier debates to Labour’s Bribery Act 2010, which is another plank in the assault on corruption. That goes to the heart of how the Bill is part of a wider package and continual process of tackling corruption.

I was pleased that there was a call for evidence on the review of limited partnerships, which closed on 17 March 2017, as this allowed people to make their concerns known about the abuse of Scottish limited partnerships that we have all seen and that has been evidenced by The Herald newspaper throughout this process. I thank the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, who has been an effective champion on this issue. I hope that, once the review is completed and we see the results, he and I will be in agreement about the next steps. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy officials are analysing the responses and expect to submit advice on options to Ministers shortly after the election.

The Ministry of Justice has conducted an initial call for evidence to examine the case for changes to the law on corporate criminality liability for wider forms of economic crime. It is considering the responses at present. We are also strengthening the supervisory regimes for the regulated sector, including proposals for a new office of professional body anti-money laundering supervision—OPBAS, I am told it is called—in the Financial Conduct Authority, to help ensure that the non-statutory supervisors comply with their obligations in the money laundering regulations.

The UK’s public register of beneficial ownership information—the first of its type in the G20—has been up and running since June 2016. Recently, we published proposals for a further public beneficial ownership register for foreign legal entities to increase the transparency of overseas investment in UK property and central Government procurement contracts. We are continuing to reform the suspicious activity report regime, including through investment in systems and processes to complement the legislative reforms. Following a commitment at last year’s anti-corruption summit, we have worked closely with civil society, businesses and practitioners to develop the first UK anti-corruption strategy.

I am pleased that we have reached this stage of the Bill’s consideration in such a constructive fashion. I invite the House to agree to the Lords amendments before us, so that this crucial legislation can be enacted without further delay.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I rise to speak on behalf of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition for the final occasion in the current Parliament.

The Minister talked about cross-party co-operation and Labour’s Bribery Act 2010, which the Bill builds on, as well as the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. We welcome all the Government’s technical amendments, because we want a Bill that works and prevents financial crime.

We all remember the heady days of 2016, when the Bill was first announced. We remember the headlines about the possibility that the assets of human rights abusers who bought London homes would be seized and all the rhetoric about cleaning up dirty money. We welcome the Bill and we are happy to support the amendments, most of which are technical and will ensure that some measures in the Bill will work more effectively. They perform a tidying-up function. We particularly support the measures that are intended to ensure that unexplained wealth orders cannot be circumvented through trusts or other complex financial arrangements, and we welcome the thought that has gone into the specific arrangements for the devolved Governments in Scotland and Northern Ireland. We in the Labour party hope that the return of an inclusive devolved Government in Northern Ireland will be achieved as soon as possible.

Let me now say something about Lords amendment 34. Throughout the Bill’s passage through the House of Commons, we have consistently returned to the elephant in the room: beneficial ownership and transparency in the United Kingdom’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies. I do not want to restate all the arguments—there is no time for me to do so, because we all have to go back to our constituencies and prepare for power, do we not?—but I believe that my position, and that of the Labour party, is clear. Labour believes that the Government have a moral duty to ensure that our overseas territories and Crown dependencies adopt publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership to prevent them from being at the global epicentre of illicit financial practices, which damage developing countries and the world economy. They contribute to geopolitical instability, and they do our reputation harm as well. We have seen headlines that, while not suggesting that dead bodies can be seen piling up on the streets of London, make it clear that malpractices have been taking place.

The argument can run and run, and we can have another day for it, but I take heart from the Government’s realisation that a step in the right direction on the long and winding road is ensuring that the new arrangements for information sharing between the relevant territories and the UK’s enforcement agencies are subject to an open and transparent review. Territories such as the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands have been astute. They are very clever at using what are essentially tokenistic, box-ticking consultations—soi-disant, in inverted commas—to argue that compliance, competitiveness and security concerns hamper their adoption of centralised and closed registers of beneficial ownership. They do that because they know they can get away with it. They know that having a centralised, as opposed to a decentralised, platform brings them one step closer to laying the foundations for a public register in the future. That is the holy grail. That is what is at the end of the rainbow—what we are all looking for.

The Government’s concession on the issue is much appreciated, but I believe that the original Labour amendment would have been a far more effective vehicle for assessing the substance of the overseas territories’ claims that they are unable to have public registers of beneficial ownership owing to those compliance, security and competitiveness concerns—all the pretexts and excuses that are being wheeled out. We firmly believe that this is a missed opportunity for Britain. The systems of British overseas territories and Crown dependencies allow tax avoidance on what some people describe as an industrial scale. It does go on, and we cannot pretend that it does not. The Government’s unwillingness to support our position on registers of beneficial ownership is unforgivable. Sadly, it shows that the Conservative party is not serious enough about money laundering. It could do better. We used to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime—indeed, we still are—but the Conservatives could be tougher on financial crime. They are not as tough as they would have us believe.

Criminal Finances Bill

Debate between Rupa Huq and Ben Wallace

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) that one part of government that has not seen a significant reduction in its budgets is the area of the regional organised crime units, the national crime agencies and the security and intelligence agencies, which assist us in tackling organised crime and money laundering. The National Crime Agency has a capital budget of £50 million this year, with £427 million of funding. It is supported in England and Wales by the regional organised crime units, which have got £519 million of funding. The figures for the Serious Fraud Office are £45 million, with £5 million of capital this year, and the figures for HMRC are £3.8 billion in resource and £242 million in capital. Of course, in terms of crime-fighting, the question is, “How long is a piece of string?”

[Dr Huq]

I am listening intently to what the Minister is saying, and I am reminded of an Evening Standard report—from earlier this year, I think—headed: “Home Office reveals new Criminal Finances Bill will target just 20 tycoons a year.” The report says that is based on the Home Office’s own impact assessment which

“predicts that the power will remain unused in its first year ‘as part of the learning curve’, and thereafter will be used in only 20 cases each year.”

That is because of resource implications, which is precisely the point raised by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless). Does the Minister have any comment to make on that?

[Mr Wallace]

The impact assessment is not linked to access to funds. The impact assessment is a judgment as to how it would see these powers being used. Probably like the hon. Lady, I would like to see them used an awful lot more, but that is an impact assessment, and the NCA does not follow the impact assessment. If the evidence is presented or the cases are put before it that allow it to do 100, it will do 100. It is not restricted by the impact assessment. I would therefore not be too distracted by the London Evening Standard and the impact assessment.

Instead, I would focus on the fact that we have well resourced our law enforcement agencies to tackle this, and this Bill will give them the power. They have the political support of both sides of the House to exercise that power, so let us see how far we go. However, I would be delighted to join the hon. Lady in asking, in 12 months’ time or whenever the Bill goes through, why we have not used them more; I will be asking the NCA and all the other organisations to try to make sure they have done so.

The hon. Member for Swansea East made a point about the asset recovery incentivisation scheme, or ARIS, funding for the recovery of assets not really being worth the paper it was printed on—I think that was what she was trying to say, if she will forgive me for putting words in her mouth. However, since 2006, under an arrangement under her last Government, £764 million has gone into funding those law enforcement agencies, and in the last three years £257 million has gone in. Hopefully, with the new arrangement, above the baseline of, I think, £146 million—I will correct that in writing if it is not £146 million—100% will be kept.

We are also following on from the excellent reports from the Home Affairs Committee and the Public Accounts Committee looking into why we have not achieved enough in terms of confiscation orders and recovery of assets. I have told officials I am particularly concerned that it was suggested in one of those reports that the focus seemed to be on small assets—the collection rate was higher for smaller amounts of money, but lower among millionaires—and I have specifically directed officials that we must look at turning the tables. I want all assets collected that are subject to confiscation, but those reports are a good guideline and we did not ignore that specific point. We will certainly make sure that we build on it and improve on it, because there is money in it for us all, should we do it, and I am very keen that we should.

New clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), seeks to prevent the courts from awarding uncapped costs against enforcement agencies when they have brought unsuccessful applications for unexplained wealth orders or related interim freezing orders. I appreciate that this is to ensure that law enforcement agencies do not feel constrained in their ability to apply for an unexplained wealth order, for fear of incurring financial liability. But, as law enforcement representatives told the Public Bill Committee in November, this is a natural part of the state wielding its investigative powers, and they are certainly not pressing for a provision of this type. It is a well-established principle that the losing party pays the winning party’s legal costs. This is an important check and balance on parties bringing spurious claims, or the state using its powers erroneously.

At the same time, the civil procedure rules do already allow for capping in exceptional circumstances, so law enforcement agencies would be able, as things stand, to apply for a cost-capping order in appropriate cases. I undertake to ensure that this point is included in the code of practice that will support the use of these orders. I trust that Members will agree that this is a far more sensible way forward than a blanket rule for all unexplained wealth order cases.

It is crucial that the initial cases are thoroughly developed to ensure that the orders have the greatest possible impact. We are already actively engaging with law enforcement officers and prosecutors to encourage the use of the new powers being introduced by the Bill. Ultimately, it will be for the enforcement authorities to decide when to use them, but we will—as, no doubt, will Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition—monitor and review the use of the orders once they have been introduced. This will inform future support or changes that may be needed to ensure that they are being used to maximum effect.

The hon. Member for Swansea East explained from the Opposition Front Bench the objective behind her amendment 1. However, as I explained when this issue arose in Committee, politically exposed persons in the UK and European economic area can, in fact, already be made subject to an unexplained wealth order. These orders can be made in two situations: first, where an individual is suspected of involvement in serious crime; and secondly, in relation to non-EEA politically exposed persons. An unexplained wealth order can thus be made in relation to politicians and senior officials in Europe, when they are suspected of being involved in serious criminality. In such an investigation, if evidence exists of links to serious organised crime, it should be available, obtainable and readily provided, and it would be unreasonable and disproportionate, for example, for Members of this House to be made subject to an order without any evidence of criminality.

However, for investigations into grand corruption involving countries outside Europe, including the developing world, that evidence is far less likely to be available. It will be much harder in some countries where corruption is endemic to get the evidence to bring to the court at first about wealth hidden in London. That is why we have chosen to have a lower threshold for evidence when applied to countries outside the EEA.

We should not forget that unexplained wealth orders are not an end in themselves; they are part of a process leading eventually, should those concerned not be able to give satisfactory answers, to another action in court to confiscate the assets. As I said when I met the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) to discuss this, I do not want unexplained wealth orders also to produce a lot of derelict empty buildings that are caught up in legal dispute and sitting around London being no good for anyone. I want them to be used and be placed on people whom we have linked to serious crime, and then, should they not be able to satisfy the court, for us then to go to the next step and recover that asset, so that the houses and the housing market are freed up, and any money is returned to whoever it has been stolen from—a country, or other people. An order is therefore a step in the process, not an end in itself.

I hope that I have sufficiently reassured the House on these points, and that the Opposition will feel inclined to not press their amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 8 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Failure to Prevent an Economic Criminal Offence

“(1) A relevant body (B) is guilty of an offence if a person commits an economic criminal offence when acting in the capacity of a person associated with (B).

(2) For the criminal purposes of this clause—

“economic criminal offence” means any of the offences listed in Part 2 of Schedule 17 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

“relevant body” and “acting in the capacity of a person associated with B” has the same meaning as in section 39.

(3) It is a defence for B to prove that, when the economic criminal offence was committed—

(a) B had in place such prevention procedures as it was reasonable in all the circumstances to expect B to have in place, or

(b) it was not reasonable in all the circumstances to expect B to have any prevention procedures in place.

(4) In subsection (2) “prevention procedures” means procedures designed to prevent persons acting in the capacity of a person associated with B from committing an economic criminal offence.

(5) A relevant body guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine,

(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine,

(c) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

(6) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether—

(a) any relevant conduct of a relevant body, or

(b) any conduct which constitutes part of a relevant criminal financial offence takes place in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.

(7) The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State must prepare and publish guidance about procedures that relevant bodies can put in place to prevent persons acting in the capacity of an associated person from committing an economic criminal offence.”—(Sir Edward Garnier.)

This new clause would create a corporate offence of failing to prevent economic crime, defined by reference to the offences listed in Part 2 of Schedule 17 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huq]

This group of new clauses contains a fair few of ours, so I shall take a bit longer than I did last time. I want to speak to new clauses 6, 16 and 17 and I want to press new clause 17 to a vote.

Tax evasion was big news in 2016 following the publication of the Panama papers, which threw light on certain opaque offshore companies. Following the leaking of those papers, the overwhelming sentiment was that something needed to be done, and this Bill is that something—or rather, it introduces a set of somethings to deal with the problem. It introduces new corporate offences that will no longer be reliant on the defunct guiding mind principle, it creates unexplained wealth orders and it contains some other eye-catching stuff including the failure to prevent offences under the category of a politically exposed person. It also makes necessary amendments to our pre-existing anti-terrorism legislation. The Minister has pointed out that the Bill builds on a raft of Labour-initiated legislation, including the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the Bribery Act 2010 and the Terrorism Acts of 2000 and 2006. On the whole, we support the Bill, and all this stuff is not to be sniffed at.

I also want to mention the new additional monitoring, which the Minister announced on the spot a little earlier, relating to the human rights abuses mentioned in our debate on the first group of new clauses.

As the Bill has progressed, however, it has become apparent that there are chinks in the armoury for fighting money laundering. We welcome what is in it, but concerns are being expressed not only in my party but by a range of charities and non-governmental organisations such as Amnesty International, Christian Aid, Traidcraft, Transparency International, CAFOD and the ONE Campaign. They are concerned about what the Bill does not contain, and the elephant in the room is the issue of beneficial ownership and the UK’s inaction in tackling the financially secretive companies and practices that lie at the heart of the economies of many of our overseas territories and Crown dependencies. Beneficial ownership is entirely not present in the Bill. It is conspicuous by its absence. In other words, I am referring to our “tax havens.” The silence seems bizarre given that we are talking about money laundering, tax evasion and terrorist financing. Whether the Government like it or not, the matter must be addressed. The issue falls within the Bill’s remit because overseas territories are facilitating, aiding and abetting financial crime. The last time I was at the Dispatch Box I said that the UK, along with its overseas territories and Crown dependencies, is the biggest secretive financial jurisdiction in the world, so we have a special responsibility to act and to lead on this agenda, not to be slightly less bad than everyone else. The UK is facilitating some of the largest and most well-known tax havens, so we should be leading not following.

When the Government have been told that they need to “get real” not just by me in Committee but by the court of public opinion after the scandalous events of last year, they need to toughen up and get a grip on overseas territories and Crown dependencies because they facilitate illicit financial activity on a global scale, but the same excuses follow and have been trotted out today: the UK does not have the constitutional legitimacy for the overseas territories and Crown dependencies; and the territories are supposedly adhering to international standards anyway, so making them adopt public registers of beneficial ownership is not necessary. We are also told that the Government do want the territories and dependencies to adopt such registers, that they are working towards that, and that in the light of the progress made the threat of an Order in Council is unnecessary.

The Government say that the time will be right when the rest of world follows the UK’s lead and that they will set a global benchmark for financial territories. At the sixth sitting of the Bill Committee, the Minister told us that only when the time is right and only when there is an international standard for public registers of beneficial ownership will it be imperative for our overseas territories and Crown dependencies to follow suit. He actually claimed that the Crown dependencies and overseas territories with financial centres are already way ahead of “most jurisdictions”, including most G20 nations, on tax transparency. We were told that they are doing enough and that now was not the time to upset the applecart with public registers, particularly when they have agreed to adopt centralised registers. The Minister may recognise his own words from Committee in response to an amendment of mine that was pretty much identical to new clause 6:

“I certainly think that these places”—

the overseas territories and Crown dependencies—

“have come 90% of the way, and we should see whether that works for us. We all have the intention”—

to adopt public registers—

“and the United Kingdom is leading by example.”

In response to our threat of an Order in Council, he said:

“The new clause is a very strong measure. We should not impose our will on the overseas territories and Crown dependencies when they have come so far.”

This is the interesting bit:

“It is important to recognise that we have got where we have through cajoling, working together and peer group pressure, which…makes a real difference.”––[Official Report, Criminal Finance Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2016; c. 199-200.]

That already seems slightly contradictory.

On the one hand, we hear that we cannot legislate for the dependencies. In fact, I remember the Minister calling me—someone whose parents suffered the worst excesses of the British empire—a neo-imperialist. It was certainly the first time that anyone has called me a neo-colonialist or whatever it was. At the same time, however, we clearly are able to do something and have the option to stop turning a blind eye and to turn inactivity into activity. The Minister himself insisted that the proposal was a “strong measure” that is less preferable to his own formula of cajoling and behind-the-scenes pressure.

[Mr Wallace]

Will the hon. Lady recognise for once that through cajoling and peer group pressure all Crown dependencies and overseas territories will by this year have central registers of beneficial ownership or similar? That is ahead of many G20 countries that do not even have central registers. We have actually come a long way and a lot further than when Labour was in government.

[Dr Huq]

I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and he said something similar in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). I will literally eat my hat—not that I am wearing one—if that happens. The registers must be in a format that is easily convertible to public registers.

We are not there yet. As someone who conducted empirical social science research, I wonder where the 90% figure came from. I know such things are often said across the Dispatch Box—in this case, it was in a Public Bill Committee—on the hoof, in the heat of the moment, and I would not want to label the Minister as a purveyor of fake news, but does he really think that we are 90% of the way there? Even if Government Members say that we do not normally do this, there is always a time when, if needed, we can step in, and the Labour party would argue that that time is now.

Criminal Finances Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Rupa Huq and Ben Wallace

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)]

Good morning, Mrs Main. I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship. This group deals with the provisions in the Bill that allow for the seizure and forfeiture of terrorist property. I suggest that we covered some of this ground in our debates last week on clauses 12 and 13, which will do likewise for proceeds of crime, and I will seek to avoid repeating all the same points.

Clause 32 and schedule 3 cover the seizure and forfeiture of moveable personal items such as precious metals and gemstones where they are earmarked for terrorism, are the resources of a proscribed organisation or are intended for use in terrorism. Clause 33 and schedule 4 give law enforcement agencies new powers to freeze funds held in bank or building society accounts that are suspected to be terrorist money, and provide for such funds to be forfeited if law enforcement agencies or the courts are satisfied that that is the case. Hon. Members will know that the threat from terrorism is constantly evolving. In the same way that we should have a mechanism to deal with criminals who launder money to evade disruption, we should have the ability to seize items that represent terrorist property.

Although this is a powerful new measure, several safeguards are built into the Bill to ensure that the interference with individuals’ rights to enjoy private property is managed in a way that is proportionate and guards against innocent parties being disadvantaged. Seized property may initially be detained for only 48 hours before an application must be made to a magistrates court in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, or to the sheriff in Scotland, for further detention for up to two years. There is therefore judicial oversight of this provision. Individuals who are joint owners of property will be able to claim back the value of their share.

Denying access to funding is already a key part of our counter-terrorism strategy, but the current powers in the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 may not always be the most appropriate operational route for combating the financing of terrorism, as they are designed to freeze the entirety of someone’s economic assets, carry a relatively high threshold for use and do not include forfeiture powers. That is why we have tabled several amendments to this part of the Bill.

New clause 18 will ensure that UK law enforcement agencies have the ability to seek forfeiture of terrorist cash without requiring a court order. An administrative forfeiture power is already provided for in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, as amended by the Policing and Crime Act 2009. However, the terrorist cash provisions in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 were not amended at that time, and we seek to address that anomaly. The new clause will ensure that the best use is made of both the courts’ and the police’s time and resources by providing that there is no need for law enforcement bodies to involve the courts where forfeiture is uncontested.

However, these provisions are not without oversight. Where terrorist cash is seized, extended detention beyond an initial 48-hour period is already subject to oversight by a magistrates court, or the sheriff in Scotland. There is therefore early judicial involvement in the detention and forfeiture process. In addition, the administrative forfeiture of cash will be exercisable only by a senior officer who is a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent.

The other amendments in this group make several technical and consequential changes to complement those provisions. In particular, they address inconsistencies in the definition of “senior officer” in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the Terrorism Act 2000 to ensure that such a person is at least the rank of superintendent. The amendments will also ensure that a court can order that property be detained under the powers in ACSA for up to six months per application, with an overall cap of two years, which is consistent with the Proceeds of Crime Act, and that these administrative forfeiture powers can be applied for and implemented in Scotland. Taken together, these measures will strengthen law enforcement agencies’ ability to disrupt terrorist financing in a proportionate and effective way.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I apologise for being slightly late, Mrs Main. Her Majesty’s Opposition support the amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Forfeiture of certain personal (or moveable) property

Amendments made: 61, in schedule 3, page 117, line 36, leave out “3” and insert “6”.

This amendment has the effect that an order for the detention of seized property under new Part 4A of Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 may be made for a period of up to 6 months, rather than 3 months. This is in line with the provision made by Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Amendment 20, in schedule 3, page 122, line 28, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 62, in schedule 3, page 122, line 38, leave out “inspector” and insert “superintendent”.

This amendment has the effect that a police officer must be of at least the rank of superintendent, rather than inspector, in order to be a senior police officer for the purposes of new Part 4A of Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

Amendment 63, in schedule 3, page 126, line 33, at end insert—

“(5) If sub-paragraph (6) applies, the court or sheriff may order the property to which the application relates to be released to the applicant or to the person from whom it was seized.

(6) This sub-paragraph applies where—

(a) the applicant is not the person from whom the property to which the application relates was seized,

(b) it appears to the court or sheriff that the property belongs to the applicant,

(c) the court or sheriff is satisfied that the release condition is met in relation to the property, and

(d) no objection to the making of an order under sub-paragraph (5) has been made by the person from whom the property was seized.

(7) The release condition is met—

(a) in relation to property detained under paragraph 10C or 10D, if the conditions in paragraph 10C or (as the case may be) 10D for the detention of the property are no longer met, and

(b) in relation to property detained under paragraph 10G, if the court or sheriff decides not to make an order under that paragraph in relation to the property.”

This amendment adds to new paragraph 10O of Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which concerns the release of property seized under new Part 4A of that Schedule, provision which is equivalent to section 301(4) and (5) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Amendment 21, in schedule 3, page 127, line 18, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 22, in schedule 3, page 127, line 20, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 23, in schedule 3, page 127, line 28, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.— (Mr Wallace.)

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

Forfeiture of money held in bank and building society accounts

Amendments made: 24, in schedule 4, page 129, line 1, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 64, in schedule 4, page 129, line 7, leave out “inspector” and insert “superintendent”.

This amendment has the effect that a police officer must be of at least the rank of superintendent, rather than inspector, in order to be a senior officer for the purposes of new Part 4B of Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

Amendment 65, in schedule 4, page 131, line 37, leave out “: England and Wales and Northern Ireland”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 66.

Amendment 66, in schedule 4, page 131, line 38, leave out “made by a magistrates’ court”.

This amendment has the effect of extending the application of the provision in new Part 4B of Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 about the administrative forfeiture of terrorist money held in bank and building society accounts from England and Wales and Northern Ireland to the whole of the UK.

Amendment 67, in schedule 4, page 134, line 11, leave out “a magistrates’” and insert “the relevant”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 66.

Amendment 68, in schedule 4, page 134, line 16, after “the”, insert “relevant”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 66.

Amendment 69, in schedule 4, page 134, line 22, after “the”, insert “relevant”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 66.

Amendment 70, in schedule 4, page 134, line 26, after first “the”, insert “relevant”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 66.

Amendment 71, in schedule 4, page 134, line 29, after first “the”, insert “relevant”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 66.

Amendment 72, in schedule 4, page 134, line 35, leave out “, is to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.” and insert—

“—

(a) if, before being forfeited, the money was held in an account in relation to which an account freezing order made by a magistrates’ court had effect, is to be paid into the Consolidated Fund;

(b) if, before being forfeited, the money was held in an account in relation to which an account freezing order made by the sheriff had effect, is to be paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund.”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 66.

Amendment 25, in schedule 4, page 138, line 15, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.— (Mr Wallace.)

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34

Extension of powers to accredited financial investigators

Amendments made: 26, in clause 34, page 90, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 on page 91 and insert—

“Counter-terrorism financial investigators

63F Counter-terrorism financial investigators

(1) The metropolitan police force must provide a system for the accreditation of financial investigators (“counter-terrorism financial investigators”).

(2) The system of accreditation must include provision for—

(a) the monitoring of the performance of counter-terrorism financial investigators,

(b) the withdrawal of accreditation from any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any condition subject to which he or she was accredited, and

(c) securing that decisions under that system which concern—

(i) the grant or withdrawal of accreditations, or

(ii) the monitoring of the performance of counter-terrorism financial investigators,

are taken without regard to their effect on operations by the metropolitan police force or any other person.

(3) A person may be accredited if he or she is—

(a) a member of civilian staff of a police force in England and Wales (including the metropolitan police force), within the meaning of Part 1 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2001;

(b) a member of staff of the City of London police force;

(c) a member of staff of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

(4) A person may be accredited—

(a) in relation to this Act;

(b) in relation to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001;

(c) in relation to particular provisions of this Act or of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

(5) But the accreditation may be limited to specified purposes.

(6) A reference in this Act or in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to a counter-terrorism financial investigator is to be construed accordingly.

(7) The metropolitan police force must make provision for the training of persons in—

(a) financial investigation,

(b) the operation of this Act, and

(c) the operation of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.”

This amendment provides for a new system of accreditation and training of financial investigators for the purposes of exercising certain powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

Amendment 27, in clause 34, page 91, line 24, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 28, in clause 34, page 91, line 36, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 29, in clause 34, page 91, line 38, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 30, in clause 34, page 91, line 45, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 31, in clause 34, page 92, line 2, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 32, in clause 34, page 92, line 5, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 33, in clause 34, page 92, line 7, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 34, in clause 34, page 92, line 11, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 35, in clause 34, page 92, line 14, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 36, in clause 34, page 92, line 16, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 37, in clause 34, page 92, line 20, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 38, in clause 34, page 92, line 22, leave out “designated accredited” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 39, in clause 34, page 92, line 26, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 40, in clause 34, page 92, line 28, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 41, in clause 34, page 92, line 36, leave out “designated” substitute “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 42, in clause 34, page 92, line 42, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 43, in clause 34, page 92, line 44, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.— (Mr Wallace.)

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 35 stand part.

[Mr Wallace]

Across UK policing, more use is being made of skilled individuals who are not warranted police officers to support the full range of police work, allowing warranted officers to focus on the activities that need their specific training and experience. The financial aspects of terrorism investigations are unlike proceeds of crime investigations—this is not about identifying illicit wealth and taking the profit out of crime. For terrorism, financial investigation allows the police to disrupt terrorist activity by removing access to funds, and to make links in terrorist investigations.

As I set out last week, clause 34 provides for the creation of a new category of civilian financial investigator, to be known as a counter-terrorism financial investigator, which will exercise certain existing investigatory powers, including applying to a court for production orders, financial information orders or account monitoring orders, and to seize terrorist cash or moveable stores of value. The investigator will also be able to use new disclosure order powers being created under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the new bank account seizure and forfeiture powers in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

The new provisions do not confer on counter-terrorism financial investigators any of the search powers available in the legislation for terrorist investigations, and the Government amendments we debated last week will ensure that the investigators will be subject to training and monitoring by the Metropolitan Police Service. The changes are entirely consistent with the changes currently being brought in through the Policing and Crime Bill, which will give chief officers a greater ability to designate civilians with the powers of constables.

Finally, clause 35 introduces offences of obstructing or assaulting the investigators. It is important that a civilian performing the functions of, and exercising the same powers as, a police officer is afforded the same legal protections from assault or wilful obstruction as their police counterparts. That is consistent with the approach taken in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and elsewhere in the Bill. I hope the clauses stand part of the Bill.

[Dr Huq]

We support the clauses but we also have tabled a forthcoming new clause that questions a couple of things. If we are looking at increasing workload, we like the idea of the extension of powers of the accredited financial investigators, but we would like to see some commensurate resources. On the other stuff, public servants should never be assaulted in the line of duty, so we wholeheartedly support that provision.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

Offences in relation to accredited financial investigators

Amendments made: 44, in clause 35, page 93, line 3, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 45, in clause 35, page 93, line 4, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 46, in clause 35, page 93, line 7, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 47, in clause 35, page 93, line 36, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 48, in clause 35, page 93, line 37, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 49, in clause 35, page 93, line 41, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.—(Mr Wallace.)

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Meaning of relevant body and acting in the capacity of an associated person

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Wallace]

Mrs Main, this is like an auction—the speed at which you are dealing with matters. The only person who can understand these things is the auctioneer.

Clause 36 defines essential terms that establish the scope of the new corporate offences of domestic and foreign failure to prevent tax evasion. It defines those entities that can be liable under the new offences, and those persons for whom a corporation can be liable if it fails to prevent them from facilitating tax evasion. The relevant bodies that can be liable under the new offences are defined as bodies incorporated and partnerships, not individual men or women, reflecting the responses to HMRC’s consultation on the provisions. The new offences can therefore be committed by companies, whether established to make a profit or for charitable purposes; partnerships; and similar entities established under foreign law. Indeed, the not-for-profit sector publically welcomed the offence applying to its sector, recognising that charities can be misused to facilitate tax evasion. Individuals involved in facilitating tax evasion will of course continue to face prosecution under existing tax evasion offences.

We will go on to debate the provisions in greater depth, but for now it is important to stress that part 3 of the Bill creates offences of corporate failure to prevent the criminal facilitation of tax evasion. They are not offences of corporate failure to prevent tax evasion itself and do not create a legal obligation for corporations to prevent their client’s tax evasion.

The clause also defines broadly the persons who could attract liability for a relevant body. Those include an employee, an agent and any other person who provides services for, or on behalf of, the relevant body. That mirrors the similar offence of corporate failure to prevent bribery in the Bribery Act 2010. That is important because we have seen in the past that corporations structure their affairs to try to insulate themselves from liability by deliberately contracting out the most risky services, typically to persons based in the most secretive jurisdictions. The definition of associated persons in the clause addresses that and closes that potential loophole.

However, it is important to appreciate that not every act of, say, an employee will give rise to criminal liability for the relevant body. For example, where an employee who has gone home from work and is acting in their private capacity criminally facilitates a tax evasion offence by their partner, that will not give rise to any liability for the employing relevant body because the criminal facilitating act was not done in the capacity of employee. I hope that that explanation provides a useful introduction to how the subsequent clauses will function.

[Dr Huq]

We support the clause. The Minister mentioned the Bribery Act 2010, from which there has been an unusually small number of successful convictions. Does he have any thoughts as to whether there will be a beefed-up number from this legislation? That is largely what I wanted to ask about it. Many big companies have been blogging that it is a bad idea, which makes me think that it must be a good one.

[Mr Wallace]

In response to what has been said by the Opposition spokeswoman, it is important to note that the Bribery Act has two effects: prosecution, but also change of behaviour. If one goes out to many parts of the world where British companies are engaged in export or trying to win orders, it is clear that the message has gone out loud and clear not to bribe them and not to be involved in bribery. I was in Kenya a couple of weeks ago, and it is clear that British businesses there—people wishing to do business—do not even ask. That is a cultural change so, as I said, the effect is twofold. One thing that can be said about the Bribery Act is that it certainly went to the heart of things. There were no favours drawn: the first person convicted under the Bribery Act was an employee of the Ministry of Justice, and was convicted quite soon after the introduction of the legislation, so we all work under it, whether we are a civil servant or a business.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Failure to prevent facilitation of UK tax evasion offences

Amendment made: 50, in clause 37, page 95, line 40, after “England” insert “and Wales”.—(Mr Wallace.)

This amendment corrects an omission in clause 37(8)(b).

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

We support the clause and, like the Opposition spokesperson, we commend its international reach. We look forward to discussions, perhaps this afternoon, on new clause 6, but instinctively, like Opposition Members, we are minded to take the clause further.

As time goes on, we ought to monitor the issue of designing processes that demonstrate that reasonable measures have been taken not to facilitate tax evasion. As a consumer finance lawyer, I have seen large multinational organisations roll out various folders of processes, procedures and protocols, but we were not always convinced that those had been followed to the letter. Some sort of monitoring mechanism would be most helpful.

We ask the Government to take note of the evidence we heard last week that these measures could disproportionately impact smaller organisations; larger organisations may be more suited to gathering this information in order to set out processes and procedures. We should keep an eye on those two things. We look forward to discussions on new clause 6 and support the clause.

[Mr Wallace]

To clarify, I think that statutory guidance is first published in draft. Given the hon. Gentleman’s experience, I would welcome his input on whether that guidance is appropriate. We did that with the Bribery Act; I remember when that came out. Statutory guidance is an important tool for small businesses, because big businesses have big compliance departments and can do all the work even without the statutory guidance, but for small or medium-sized businesses, the statutory guidance is a good starting point. It is really important both that we get it right, and that we get it written in plain English.

I reiterate the offence created by the clause: if someone in a Crown dependency or overseas territory—I know that hon. Members are interested in those—is advising UK citizens to evade UK tax, it does not matter that they have no nexus here; they are criminally at risk. As regards trying to change the behaviour of overseas territories or tax havens, this offence will allow us to prosecute people anywhere in the world who are encouraging people to evade UK tax. That is a major and significant step. If someone on a Caribbean island calls themselves a tax consultant and encourages British people to evade tax, we will come after them. That is a major change that goes beyond the shores of the United Kingdom. I hope that the action that we have taken to stop that will go some way to alleviating colleagues’ concerns about the behaviour of some tax havens around the world.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Failure to prevent facilitation of foreign tax evasion offences

[Dr Huq]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 38, page 96, line 6, after “United Kingdom” insert—

“Crown dependency or British overseas territory”.

This amendment would extend the offence of failure to prevent facilitation of foreign tax evasion offences to companies incorporated in a British Overseas Territory or Crown Dependency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bootle and pleased to say that the Government are supportive of what he is trying to achieve—that the new offences should be as effective as possible at changing corporate behaviour, and that law enforcement should have the tools it needs to police the new laws effectively. However, I hope to reassure him and his hon. Friends that those matters are already provided for.

As the hon. Gentleman said, new clause 7 would introduce a system of corporate probation orders, which would allow a court to require relevant bodies found guilty of the new corporate offences to make changes to their prevention procedures. Hon. Members should be aware that clause 43(2) adds those offences to the list of offences for which a serious crime prevention order can be imposed under the Serious Crime Act 2007. Serious crime prevention orders allow for a court passing sentence on a person or corporate body to impose prohibitions, restrictions or requirements to prevent, restrict or disrupt involvement in serious crime. Those orders are already available and can successfully disrupt tax fraud. Where such an order is made against a relevant body, its terms may require the body to allow a law enforcement agency to monitor how it provides services in the future.

Additionally, where the corporation in question is in the regulated sector, the regulator may, quite independently of a serious crime prevention order, undertake monitoring of the relevant body, relevant to failings in its systems and controls. For example, the Financial Conduct Authority could take steps to disqualify directors or put extra conditions on to the companies. It is the Government’s view that the hon. Gentleman’s objective can be achieved by applying the existing power to impose serious crime prevention orders on conviction of the new offences, or within the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement. Those orders can do anything that corporation probation would do.

New clause 8 would create a duty on the Secretary of State to investigate the directors of a company found guilty of a UK or foreign tax evasion offence, to see whether they should be disqualified. The existing law already allows the Secretary of State to apply to a court to have a director disqualified where he or she believes that that is in the public interest. A court can grant such an order when it is satisfied that the director’s conduct makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of the company. There is no evidence of which we are aware that the power is not being used in the appropriate cases. When not used, it is not used for appropriate reasons. When company directors are charged with offences, the sentencing court can consider disqualification.

Where the new offence is charged and the relevant body is not tried alongside a director, prosecutors will still be able to refer cases to the Secretary of State so that an application for disqualification can be considered. Indeed, there may be cases when sentencing judges recommend that this is done in their sentencing remarks. In short, rather than creating new law, we again consider it proper for the new offences to sit alongside, and work within, the existing legislative framework for disqualifying directors. If regulators have evidence that a director is unfit to be concerned in the management of the company, they can refer the case to the Secretary of State to make an application to have that director disqualified.

I hope that the hon. Members for Ealing Central and for Bootle, and others, agree that these points are therefore already accounted for, that they do not feel the need to move their new clauses, and that clause 38 can stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

Guidance about preventing facilitation of tax evasion offences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 requires the Government to produce guidance on reasonable prevention procedures, and empowers the Government to agree supplementary guidance produced by others, such as industry and trade bodies. The aim of the guidance is to help organisations to understand and avoid committing the new offences by undertaking a risk assessment and establishing reasonable prevention procedures to address their risks. The guidance is vital to the success of the offences and will mean higher levels of compliance with the new legislation, creating the desired culture change, and ultimately leading to a reduction in the criminal facilitation of tax evasion. In parallel, it will help to avoid an unnecessarily defensive approach to compliance, whereby excessive prevention procedures are adopted that constitute an undue regulatory burden.

Whether any relevant body can avail itself of the reasonable procedures defence will always be a matter for the criminal courts. The guidance will be only an illustrative set of principles, not a list of absolute requirements. Departure from the guidance will not mean that the defence is unavailable and that the relevant body is guilty. There may well be many different approaches—all equally reasonable—to preventing tax evasion facilitation offences by those who act in the relevant body’s name. Equally, following the guidance does not lead the relevant body to safe harbour rendering it immune from prosecution. Even full compliance with the guidance might not amount to having reasonable prevention procedures if the prevention procedures ignore a particular risk that the relevant body’s particular business carries.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs consulted with industry extensively on what support was needed to ensure compliance with the new offences. The overwhelming feedback revealed a desire for guidance akin to that already produced for the similar offence of corporate failure to prevent bribery in the Bribery Act 2010. The last draft guidance was published at the same time as the introduction of the Bill and has received positive feedback. HMRC continues to work with a number of leading financial service trade bodies on developing detailed supplementary guidance for the sector. I hope the clause stands part of the Bill.

[Dr Huq]

We all need guidance in life. The measures sound eminently sensible and the Minister described them cogently. We support the clause.

Question put and agree to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Offences: extra-territorial application and jurisdiction

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

Clause 40 provides for the extraterritorial application of the corporate failure to prevent offences. The UK’s criminal courts will have jurisdiction to try the domestic tax offence in clause 37, regardless of where the conduct took place. The UK courts claim jurisdiction as a result of the UK suffering the tax loss. With respect to the foreign tax offence, our courts again claim jurisdiction on the basis that the relevant body has a nexus with the UK, such that it can be regarded as part of UK plc and thus is required to abide by the criminal law of this country. We have seen, and our partners in other jurisdictions have confirmed that they have also seen, that those deliberately facilitating tax evasion will typically offshore illicit services to try to avoid detection and to hide in the gaps between domestic legal systems.

Those facilitating offshore tax evasion often do not provide those services from within the geographic borders of the country whose tax loss they are facilitating. It is therefore vital that both the domestic and the overseas tax evasion facilitation offences capture activity that takes place outside the United Kingdom. Failure to apply the laws in such a way would lead to loopholes that could be easily exploited. By its very nature, the foreign tax evasion offence is likely to raise a complicated range of competing interests and issues, including those relating to international relations and diplomatic affairs.

Clause 41 puts appropriate safeguards in place by requiring that a decision to prosecute the offence is taken only by, or with the authority of, the director of these prosecuting bodies: the Director of Public Prosecutions, the director of the Serious Fraud Office or the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. A similar protection is in place for prosecutions for the corporate failure to prevent bribery under section 7 of the Bribery Act. I hope the clauses stand part of the Bill.

[Dr Huq]

Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition support clause 40.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42

Offences by partnerships: supplementary

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 43 and 44.

[Mr Wallace]

Clause 42 makes provision for rules of criminal procedure in relation to the prosecution of companies to apply to prosecutions of partnerships for the new offences in part 3. It mirrors section 15 of the Bribery Act 2010 and provides that proceedings for an offence under clauses 37 or 38 are to be brought in the name of the partnership and not that of an individual partner; and that any resulting fine is paid out of the assets of the partnership. The clause also applies existing rules of criminal procedure applicable where bodies corporate are prosecuted. They cover various matters including the transfer of cases from the magistrates court to the Crown court, the representation of the relevant body in court, the entering of pleas and the taking of action in the relevant body’s absence.

As I mentioned in debating an earlier group, clause 43 amends a number of pieces of existing legislation, adding the new offences created by part 3 to the lists of offences for which various powers are available, which will assist the effective investigation and prosecution of the offences. That includes allowing the CPS to require suspected persons to answer questions or provide information in relation to those offences; allowing for serious crime prevention orders to be imposed on relevant bodies; and providing for deferred prosecution agreements.

Clause 44 is simply an interpretation clause, defining terms within part 3. I hope the clauses stand part of the Bill.

[Dr Huq]

We support the clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 43 and 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 9

Immigration officers

‘(1) Section 24 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (seizure of cash) is amended as follows.

(2) For the heading substitute “Exercise of civil recovery powers by immigration officers”.

(3) For subsection (1) substitute—

(1) Chapters 3 to 3B of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (civil recovery) apply in relation to an immigration officer as they apply in relation to a constable.”

(4) In subsection (2)(a), for “section 289” substitute “sections 289 and 303C and Chapter 3B”.

(5) In subsection (2)(c), for “and 297A” substitute “, 297A and 303E and in Chapter 3B (see section 303Z2(7))”.

(6) In subsection (2)(d), for “section 292” substitute “sections 292 and 303G”.

(7) In subsection (2)(e), for “and 293A” substitute “, 293A, 303H and 303I”.

(8) In subsection (2)(f), in the words before sub-paragraph (i), after “295(2)” insert “or 303L(1)”.

(9) In subsection (2)(f)(ii), after “298” insert “or (as the case may be) 303O”.

(10) In subsection (2)(g), after “298” insert “, 303O or 303Z14”.

(11) In subsection (2)(h), after “302” insert “, 303W or 303Z18”.” .—(Mr Wallace.)

Immigration officers exercise the civil recovery powers conferred by Chapter 3 of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 by virtue of section 24 of the UK Borders Act 2007. These amendments of section 24 provide for immigration officers to be able to exercise the civil recovery powers conferred by new Chapters 3A and 3B of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (see clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill) in the same way.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

Forfeiture of cash

‘(1) In section 289(6) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (meaning of cash for purposes of Chapter 3 of Part 5 of that Act), after paragraph (e) insert—

“(f) gaming vouchers,

(g) fixed-value casino tokens,”.

(2) After section 289(7) of that Act insert—

“(7A) For the purposes of subsection (6)—

(a) “gaming voucher” means a voucher in physical form issued by a gaming machine within the meaning of the Gambling Act 2005 (see section 235 of that Act) that represents a right to be paid the amount stated on it;

(b) “fixed-value casino token” means a casino token that represents a right to be paid the amount stated on it.”

(3) In Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (forfeiture of terrorist cash), in paragraph 1 (meaning of terrorist cash)—

(a) after sub-paragraph (2)(e) insert—

(f) gaming vouchers,

(b) fixed-value casino tokens,”;

(b) after sub-paragraph (4) insert—

“(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) “gaming voucher” means a voucher in physical form issued by a gaming machine within the meaning of the Gambling Act 2005 (see section 235 of that Act) that represents a right to be paid the amount stated on it;

(b) “fixed-value casino token” means a casino token that represents a right to be paid the amount stated on it.””—(Mr Wallace.)

This new clause provides for casino tokens and what are commonly referred to as “ticket in ticket out vouchers” to be treated as cash for the purposes of the civil recovery powers conferred by Chapter 3 of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and by Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 18

Forfeiture of terrorist cash

‘(1) Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (forfeiture of terrorist cash) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 3 (detention of seized cash)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (2)(a), for “three” substitute “6”;

(b) after sub-paragraph (8) insert—

“(9) Where an application for an order under sub-paragraph (2) relates to cash seized under paragraph 2(2), the court, sheriff or justice may make the order if satisfied that—

(a) the condition in sub-paragraph (6), (7) or (8) is met in respect of part of the cash, and

(b) it is not reasonably practicable to detain only that part.”

(3) After paragraph 5 insert—

Part 2A

Forfeiture of terrorist cash without court order

Cash forfeiture notice

5A (1) This paragraph applies while any cash is detained in pursuance of an order under paragraph 3(2).

(2) A senior officer may give a notice for the purpose of forfeiting the cash or any part of it if satisfied that the cash or part is terrorist cash.

(3) A notice given under sub-paragraph (2) is referred to in this Schedule as a cash forfeiture notice.

(4) A cash forfeiture notice must—

(a) state the amount of cash in respect of which it is given,

(b) state when and where the cash was seized,

(c) confirm that the senior officer is satisfied as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2),

(d) specify a period for objecting to the proposed forfeiture and an address to which any objections must be sent, and

(e) explain that the cash will be forfeited unless an objection is received at that address within the period for objecting.

(5) The period for objecting must be at least 30 days starting with the day after the notice is given.

(6) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision about how a cash forfeiture notice is to be given.

(7) The regulations may (amongst other things) provide—

(a) for a cash forfeiture notice to be given to such person or persons, and in such manner, as may be prescribed;

(b) for a cash forfeiture notice to be given by publication in such manner as may be prescribed;

(c) for circumstances in which, and the time at which, a cash forfeiture notice is to be treated as having been given.

(8) The regulations must ensure that where a cash forfeiture notice is given it is, if possible, given to every person to whom notice of an order under paragraph 3(2) in respect of the cash has been given.

(9) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this paragraph is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(10) In this Part of this Schedule—

“senior officer” means—

(a) a senior police officer;

(b) an officer of Revenue and Customs of a rank designated by the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs as equivalent to that of a senior police officer;

(c) an immigration officer of a rank designated by the Secretary of State as equivalent to that of a senior police officer;

“senior police officer” means a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent.

Effect of cash forfeiture notice

5B (1) This paragraph applies if a cash forfeiture notice is given in respect of any cash.

(2) The cash is to be detained until—

(a) the cash is forfeited under this paragraph,

(b) the notice lapses under this paragraph, or

(c) the cash is released under a power conferred by this Schedule.

(3) If no objection is made within the period for objecting specified in the notice under paragraph 5A(4)(d), and the notice has not lapsed, the cash is forfeited (subject to paragraph 5D).

(4) If an objection is made within the period for objecting, the notice lapses.

(5) If an application is made for the forfeiture of the whole or any part of the cash under paragraph 6, the notice lapses.

(6) If the cash or any part of it is released under a power conferred by this Schedule, the notice lapses or (as the case may be) lapses in relation to that part.

(7) An objection may be made by anyone (whether a recipient of the notice or not).

(8) An objection means a written objection sent to the address specified in the notice; and an objection is made when it is received at the address.

(9) An objection does not prevent forfeiture of the cash under paragraph 6.

(10) Nothing in this paragraph affects the validity of an order under paragraph 3(2).

Detention following lapse of cash forfeiture notice

5C (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) a cash forfeiture notice is given in respect of any cash,

(b) the notice lapses under paragraph 5B(4), and

(c) the period for which detention of the cash was authorised under paragraph 3(2) has expired.

(2) The cash may be detained for a further period of up to 48 hours (calculated in accordance with paragraph 3(1A)).

(3) But if within that period it is decided that neither of the applications mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) is to be made, the cash must be released.

(4) The applications are—

(a) an application for a further order under paragraph 3(2);

(b) an application for forfeiture of the cash under paragraph 6.

(5) If within that period an application is made for a further order under paragraph 3(2), the cash may be detained until the application is determined or otherwise disposed of.

Application to set aside forfeiture

5D (1) A person aggrieved by the forfeiture of cash in pursuance of paragraph 5B(3) may apply to a magistrates’ court or (in Scotland) the sheriff for an order setting aside the forfeiture of the cash or any part of it.

(2) The application must be made before the end of the period of 30 days starting with the day on which the period for objecting ended (“the 30-day period”).

(3) But the court or sheriff may give permission for an application to be made after the 30-day period has ended if the court or sheriff thinks that there are exceptional circumstances to explain why the applicant—

(a) failed to object to the forfeiture within the period for objecting, and

(b) failed to make an application within the 30-day period.

(4) On an application under this paragraph the court or sheriff must consider whether the cash to which the application relates could be forfeited under paragraph 6 (ignoring the forfeiture mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)).

(5) If the court or sheriff is satisfied that the cash to which the application relates or any part of it could not be forfeited under that paragraph the court or sheriff must set aside the forfeiture of that cash or part.

(6) Where the court or sheriff sets aside the forfeiture of any cash—

(a) the court or sheriff must order the release of that cash, and

(b) the cash is to be treated as never having been forfeited.

Release of cash subject to cash forfeiture notice

5E (1) This paragraph applies while any cash is detained under paragraph 5B or 5C.

(2) The person from whom the cash was seized may apply to a magistrates’ court or (in Scotland) the sheriff for the cash to be released.

(3) On an application under sub-paragraph (2), the court or sheriff may direct the release of the cash or any part of it if not satisfied that the cash to be released is terrorist cash.

(4) An authorised officer may release the cash or any part of it if satisfied that the detention of the cash to be released is no longer justified.

Application of cash forfeited under cash forfeiture notice

5F (1) Cash forfeited in pursuance of paragraph 5B(3), and any accrued interest on it—

(a) if first detained in pursuance of an order under paragraph 3(2) made by a magistrates’ court or a justice of the peace, is to be paid into the Consolidated Fund;

(b) if first detained in pursuance of an order under paragraph 3(2) made by the sheriff, is to be paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund.

(2) But it is not to be paid in—

(a) before the end of the period within which an application under paragraph 5D may be made (ignoring the possibility of an application by virtue of paragraph 5D(3)), or

(b) if an application is made within that period, before the application is determined or otherwise disposed of.”

(4) In paragraph 7(4) (release of cash on appeal against decision in forfeiture proceedings), after “of” insert “the whole or any part of”.

(5) In paragraph 9 (victims), after sub-paragraph (3) insert—

“(4) If sub-paragraph (5) applies, the court or sheriff may order the cash to be released to the applicant or to the person from whom it was seized.

(5) This sub-paragraph applies where—

(a) the applicant is not the person from whom the cash claimed was seized,

(b) it appears to the court or sheriff that the cash belongs to the applicant,

(c) the court or sheriff is satisfied that the release condition is met in relation to the cash, and

(d) no objection to the making of an order under sub-paragraph (4) has been made by the person from whom the cash was seized.

(6) The release condition is met—

(a) in relation to cash detained under paragraph 3, if the conditions in that paragraph for the detention of the cash are no longer met,

(b) in relation to cash detained under paragraph 5B or 5C, if the cash is not terrorist cash, and

(c) in relation to cash detained pending the conclusion of proceedings in pursuance of an application under paragraph 6, if the court or sheriff decides not to make an order under that paragraph in relation to the cash.”

(6) In paragraph 19 (general interpretation), in sub-paragraph (1), at the appropriate places insert—

““cash forfeiture notice” has the meaning given by paragraph 5A(3),”;

““senior officer” (in Part 2A) has the meaning given by paragraph 5A(10),”.”—(Mr Wallace.)

This new clause makes various amendments of Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to bring it into line with the provision made by Chapter 3 of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, including amendments to provide for the forfeiture of “terrorist cash” by the giving of a forfeiture notice. This administrative forfeiture regime will apply throughout the UK; the equivalent regime under the 2002 Act is limited in its application to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Review of Scottish Limited Partnership

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review into the extent of financial criminal activity associated with Scottish Limited Partnerships, and lay a copy of the review before the House of Commons within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.

(2) In conducting the review the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Scottish Government;

(b) the National Crime Agency;

(c) the Serious Fraud Office;

(d) the Financial Conduct Authority;

(e) HMRC;

(f) interested third sector organisations; and

(g) any other persons he deems relevant.

(3) The review must set out what steps the Government intends to take to prevent Scottish Limited Partnerships being used for criminal purposes.”—(Roger Mullin.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of financial criminality associated with Scottish Limited Partnerships and set out what steps the Government intends to take to prevent Scottish Limited Partnerships being used for criminal purposes.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that investigation and prosecution agencies have sufficient expertise and resources to carry out their functions under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Section 3 of the Act places a statutory duty on the National Crime Agency to provide a system for the accreditation of financial investigators who use the powers under POCA. This is done through the National Crime Agency’s Proceeds of Crime Centre. The accreditation system includes provision for monitoring performance and, importantly, accreditation can be removed from an investigator who fails to meet the accreditation standards.

The training can be lengthy and expensive. The Home Affairs Committee, during its recent inquiry into asset recovery, identified the risk of the private sector poaching trained resources with the promise of better pay and benefits. It was a good report. I read it in full as well as the Public Accounts Committee report.

The NCA already publishes statistics on the training activities undertaken by the Proceeds of Crime Centre in its annual report. Their last report showed the delivery of 95 training courses, support for 760 delegates through that training, and the completion of 1,400 registrations and re-accreditations. Those statistics are already published annually.

New clause 5 provides for the use of agreements to tie accredited financial investigators to their agencies, so that they would pay the cost of their training if they voluntarily left the employment of the agency that has funded their training. However, these agencies have tried such agreements and found them difficult and costly to enforce. In most cases, the benefits of such agreements are minimal.

Even if an effective and enforceable form of cost training agreement could be found—I do not want to dismiss the idea out of hand today—making it a requirement in primary legislation would not be appropriate. The operational agencies who use financial investigators should be given the freedom to manage their workforce according to their needs.

In line with the hon. Lady’s concerns, the criminal finance board, which I chair with my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, commissioned a working group to examine the retention and training of financial investigators. It has not gone away or been swept under the carpet; I assure hon. Members that nothing is swept under the carpet in my Department. There is no conspiracy either—we do not do conspiracies in my Department; we are the conspiracy, according to some. That group is also considering what actions can be taken to incentivise investigators to stay and develop their career within the public sector.

The hon. Lady also referred to ELMER—the database of the suspicious activity reports IT regime. We have committed to replacing the SARs IT regime by October ’18, but in the meantime we have taken steps to upgrade and maintain it as part of the SARs reform package. We have not finished reforming the SARs programme, and before we roll out a new system we need to know what the new suspicious activity reports will look like, because if we are going to have a software database in order to cope with that effectively, we need to know what we are planning to cope with.

I am therefore alive to the issues and will be following the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester East. I will visit to look at the system directly; I will have to bring my 1980s computer knowledge up to date to see whether I can remotely understand what I am looking at. I will certainly make sure that it is on because, like the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton, it is not my or the Government’s intention for the system to grind to a halt. It is very important.

It is also important that we register that we are keen to make sure that all those people who benefit from that system—not just the Government but the banks and the other people who use it—perhaps make a contribution towards the new system. That is important. It is for their benefit as well for the system to work successfully and efficiently.

I hope that demonstrates to the hon. Lady that I take both matters seriously. I think the training has already been dealt with, because it is published in the National Crime Agency’s annual report. I hope she is inclined to withdraw her motion on that basis.

[Dr Huq]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Annual reporting: Adequacy of resources

“(1) In Part 12 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (miscellaneous and general), after section 455, insert—

“455A Annual reports on resources

(1) A relevant authority must, no later than 1 June in each calendar year, prepare an annual report on the adequacy of the resources available from money voted by Parliament for the exercise of any functions of that authority—

(a) under this Act;

(b) in connection with investigations into terrorist financing offences under the Terrorism Act 2000;

(c) under Part 3 of the Criminal Finances Act 2017.

(2) In this section, “a relevant authority” means—

(a) the National Crime Agency;

(b) the Director of Public Prosecutions;

(c) the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, and

(d) Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

(3) The reports prepared in accordance with subsection (1) shall be sent—

(a) in the case of the National Crime Agency, to the Secretary of State;

(b) in the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, to the Attorney General, and

(c) in the case of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

(4) The person receiving annual reports in accordance with subsection (3) must lay those reports before each House of Parliament in the form in which they were received no later than 30 June in the same calendar year, together with a statement on plans for future resources to be provided from money voted by Parliament.”.”.—(Peter Dowd.)

This new clause would require the National Crime Agency and other agencies to report annually to Parliament on the adequacy of its resource to fulfil its functions relating to combating financial crime.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

In my response to the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton on new clauses 2 and 5, I explained what we are doing to assess the capacity and capability of investigator resource. The new tools in the Bill are a key part of strengthening our response to economic crime. The Government continue to invest in law enforcement agencies through the asset recovery incentivisation scheme, which returns recovered assets back to the frontline. A top-slice of £5 million has been set aside every year until the end of this Parliament to fund key national asset recovery capabilities, and I can announce today that we are going further. We made a manifesto commitment to return a greater percentage of recovered assets to policing, and we are implementing that commitment by investing in policing the whole Home Office share of amounts above a certain baseline collected by the multi-agency regional asset recovery teams. That will give the agencies greater financial resources, if performance continues to increase—100% of the Home Office share, rather than the 50% that they currently get. There we are: an announcement in a Bill Committee—a new way of venturing forward.

Let us be honest: I say to the hon. Member for Bootle that in Government, we never have enough resources across all our priorities, because different priorities are preyed on by events such as flooding in the west of England, or issues for the Home Office such as a surge in terrorism. I therefore question the use of the word “adequacy” in the new clause. We can scrutinise accounts or budgets, but asking a police officer whether he feels he has enough is like asking, “How long is a piece of string?” Of course we never have enough for crime fighting across the country. If I had millions of pounds, I could find things to spend that money on immediately, and so could every Member in this Committee Room.

I am concerned about whether it would be right and fair to publish a report to Parliament, as the new clause demands. The agencies that use their powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act already report on their resources and results through the departmental annual accounts, which are subject to scrutiny from the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. The use of criminal justice tools and powers is also subject to scrutiny by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and, in the case of terrorism legislation, by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. The criminal finances board also closely monitors performance and resourcing issues. I hope that the hon. Members for Ealing Central and Acton, and for Bootle, can see that there is already significant scrutiny of resourcing. I invite the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton to withdraw the motion.

[Dr Huq]

I was interested to hear a groundbreaking announcement in this Committee. I completely get the Minister’s point that we will never feel satiated, and that there will always be inadequacy, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle made a really powerful case. He mentioned SARs and the ELMER IT regime. Originally, 20,000 SARs were anticipated, but there are now 381,882—my hon. Friend said there were “up to” 381,000 of them, but there are even more, and the figure is rising.

I want to mention the NCA’s ability to cope with the greater workload. It takes an increasing length of time to get investigations into the courts. We have heard that it could take more than 200 days, with the new SARs regime. The NCA was created as a successor to several different organisations. The budget of those it replaced was £812 million, but the NCA’s new annual budget was £474 million. Those figures put the situation into context. The Government have cut that budget even further since the NCA’s creation; it received £411 million in 2015-16. I accept that there was a one-off £200 million cash injection last year, but the agency needs steady long-term funding to carry out its functions effectively. It is no good just sprinkling blockbuster sums now and then; it needs a consistent funding model.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle made some powerful points. For effective crime fighting, we should not have agencies that are overworked and under-resourced. The announcement that 100% of assets will go to the Home Office conflicts with an amendment that we have tabled.

[Mr Wallace]

Not the Home Office; it is going to the law-enforcement agencies.

[Dr Huq]

Okay, so it is within the system. We have tabled new clause 20, which is about repatriating assets to the jurisdictions they came from. Some charities—Christian Aid and all those people—are saying that third-world health budgets get robbed when someone buys a house in Hampstead with such proceeds. Are we going to—

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Arkless]

I would like to make a very small point about the Minister’s comments on new clause 3. He rightly suggests that if we were to ask any police officer or public servant whether they had enough resources, the answer would clearly always be no, but the new clause does not seem like a generic question about whether there is enough generally. The hon. Member for Bootle is asking whether adequate resources are available for specific functions to be exercised under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. That is a marked departure from asking any Department the generic question, “Have you got enough, guv?”, to which we would almost certainly know the answer. The new clause is about activities undertaken under the Act, and I do not think it is fair to categorise the suggestion as the Minister did.

[Mr Wallace]

Perhaps I can clarify some of the issues. Obviously the word “adequate” is subjective. We heard evidence in Committee from members of the law enforcement agencies, and they did use the word “enough”. My point is that we scrutinise the accounts in this place, and then compare that with agencies’ performance and outcomes. That is how we come to a decision—subjective, often—on whether there are adequate resources. It is not necessary to put that in primary legislation.

Perhaps I could clarify for the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton the issues around asset recovery and where those funds go. At the moment, if we recover assets from drug dealers, for example, the money is split, with 50% going to the Home Office, and 50% to the Crown Prosecution Service and all the other agencies—the National Crime Agency or the police—involved in that operation, so that they can invest it in their capabilities, and use it to increase their ability to fight crime. I can say today that further to our manifesto commitment, in future, instead of having that 50% of the cake, they will be able to keep 100% of the amount coming in above the baseline, which was set in 2015, if I am not mistaken. They have a very strong incentive to ensure that they are rewarded for their good work, and to make sure that we go after big sums as well as small. That is important.

On the point the hon. Lady raised about returning money that is stolen—we will come back to this—we sent back £27 million to Macau recently. Where we identify the ownership of stolen assets that we can return to a foreign country or wherever, we will, and we have already done that. My colleague the Minister for Immigration signed a memorandum of understanding with the Nigerian Government in August to make it even easier for us to return stolen property or assets to a country’s people. It is absolutely our intention to do that.

Across the money laundering piece, we can identify the owners of certain assets and take steps to return them. Other assets that accrue because of the high margins in the illicit trade of, say, drugs may be harder to return. In fact, the people who contributed to those sums may have committed a crime themselves, so there is a difference there. I recently saw in Mombasa some confiscated stuff that we will be returning, as soon as we can get through the paperwork. It is not our intention to divvy up the proceeds from the house in Knightsbridge and hand them all over to the National Crime Agency, and rob the third country from which the money was stolen.

[Dr Huq]

I wanted clarification on just one other thing. The Home Affairs Committee report wanted ELMER replaced by the end of December. Am I right in thinking that the Minister referred to October 2018?

[Mr Wallace]

2018.

[Dr Huq]

So it will not be December?

[Mr Wallace]

No. As I said earlier, we have spent money updating and making sure that ELMER is maintained, but we are also in the process of drawing up a SAR reform policy. There are a number of reasons why there are so many referrals—380,000-odd—but the Bill will hopefully cut that number. We want quality, not quantity. At the moment, we are getting quantity, partly because in the suspicious activity regime, if a body makes the report, its defence is halfway there—that is the tick-box bit that is highlighted in the report. Also, many institutions currently report a fragment of the transactions, because they say that they are unable to report the complete transaction due to data-sharing barriers. That is why this Bill removes those barriers. Hopefully, instead of 15 pieces of a transaction being reported as 15 separate SARs, we will get one, because one institution will be able to report the transaction from beginning to end.

We are already taking steps to reduce demand on the system. The system is working; people should not think it has stopped working. The challenge is the analysis, and making sure that we act on the suspicious reports and are quick enough to discard the ones that are not, because we want quality, not quantity.

This time last year, we agreed a £200 million capital improvement budget for the National Crime Agency between 2016 and 2020. That is a huge sum of money for it to spend on a whole range of capital projects to bring them up-to-date. We all have lessons to learn—Labour Governments and Conservative Governments—from rushing into IT replacement projects that cost much more than anyone envisaged. It is therefore important we get the new SARs regime right before we replace the system. I assure hon. Members that that is at the forefront of my mind. We are not going to fall over—that is the main thing—and we will make sure that when we replace it, we do so with the right system, so that we are not all back in this Committee Room in a few years’ time saying, “The SARs regime is not working.” I hope that clarifies the point for the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton.

Criminal Finances Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Rupa Huq and Ben Wallace

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mrs Main. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle made an excellent speech. New clause 6 is supported by Amnesty International, CAFOD, Corruption Watch, Global Witness, ONE, Rights and Accountability in Development, Tax Justice Network, The Corner House, Traidcraft and Transparency International UK. Those are some heavyweight organisations. Before we adjourned, my hon. Friend asked what happened to the consultation promised at the anti-corruption summit. I would be interested to hear the answer.

[The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)]

New clause 6 highlights an issue raised on a number of occasions when we heard from interested parties about the Bill last week. I am pleased that the Opposition have tabled it, because it allows me to restate that the Government appreciate those concerns and agree that the damage caused by economic crime facilitated by those working for major companies is serious and affects individuals, businesses and the wider economy, and indeed the reputation of the United Kingdom as a place to do business.

As the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton is aware, the Labour Government took action in the Bribery Act 2010 in respect of bribery committed in pursuit of corporate business objectives. The Act is widely respected as both a sound enforcement tool and a measure incentivising bribery prevention as part of good corporate governance. We have already debated the new corporate offence of failure to prevent tax evasion created in the Bill. The provisions followed a process of extensive consultation, as did the Bribery Act 2010. I trust that hon. Members will agree that such an approach is necessary when considering the adequacy of the existing legal framework in matters involving complex legal and policy issues.

In respect of the current law governing corporate criminal liability for economic crime, the Government announced that a consultation would take place in May this year. I confirm that we will publish a call for evidence on the subject. In keeping with the considered and methodical approach adopted for the reforms on bribery and tax evasion, the call for evidence will form part of a two-part consultation process. It will openly request and examine evidence for and against the case for reform and seek views on a number of possible options. Should the responses that we receive justify changes to the law, the Government will then consult on firm proposals. The Government believe that it would be wrong to rush into legislation in this area for the reasons I have given. In the light of my assurances and the forthcoming publication of the call for evidence, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

First, I think that we all support what we are trying to do: returning money that we take off the bad guys to whomever it belongs to. If that is not possible—I used the example earlier of a criminal enterprise whose wealth was created by drug dealers, rather than by ripping off a state or somebody else’s assets—we return it to the prosecution authorities to ensure that they can continue.

Significantly, in the past, we have seen money paid back in cases of grand corruption. The UK is party to the UN convention against corruption, article 57 of which clearly requires embezzled funds to be paid back to the victim state, so we are already obliged under international law to do that. We must do that, and it is what we want to do. The £28 million returned to Macau that the hon. Lady and I both mentioned fell under the auspices of that convention. As we are subject to international law, there is no requirement to put such provisions in our domestic legislation. Nothing in our law prevents us from returning recovered assets.

Sharing and repatriating assets in asset recovery cases is a fast-developing issue in international law, and it is something that the UK fully supports. For example, there is a requirement, under the EU framework decision on the mutual recognition of confiscation orders, that at least 50% of assets recovered on behalf of another member be sent back to that state. The UK can return assets to any country, and where underpinning international agreements are required, we enthusiastically pursue them. For example, we recently concluded an asset-sharing agreement with Nigeria, under the formal title I referred to earlier.

This helpful debate on the Opposition’s new clause has allowed us to put these points on the record, but I trust that the Opposition will agree that there is no need for further primary legislation. Asset return happens anyway, with my full support and encouragement. Indeed, strict requirements in an Act could restrict our flexibility and make it harder to obtain effective asset-return agreements tailored to the peculiarities of individual cases. I am aware of a number of cases in which another country’s Government members have requested that we effectively co-return assets for certain projects, for fear of them disappearing into other parts of that Government that are corrupt. That type of flexibility is important to make sure that moneys returned do indeed get to the right place, rather than going back to the same place, and the same individual turning the assets of crime back into another townhouse in London.

That flexibility is really important, and while I cannot bind any successor Government, it would be odd if any Government chose to say, “No, thank you, we are going to keep everything, break our international law obligations, and upset a number of countries around the world by just pocketing this for ourselves.” It is not what we have done in the past, and it is not what we will do in the future. I urge the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton to look to our obligations under international law; I hope that that will satisfy her that we do not need more restrictive primary legislation on this issue.

[Dr Huq]

I listened carefully to the Minister. The 14 subsections in new clause 20 have a set of in-built checks and balances, and I know that the development charities would be disappointed if the new clause was not in the Bill. I accept, as I said, that things are being done on this front—the Macau example is a very good one—but as I understand it, the Minister says that there is no need for the new clause because there are international agreements. He mentioned the EU framework; the first money laundering directive also came from the EU, and we are leaving the EU, so I think it is no bad thing to put our own defence in the Bill, if only for ourselves. We would like to put the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

That’s me!

[Dr Huq]

Yes. The Minister was quoted in the Jersey States Assembly in a question about the fact that

“the U.K. Government hopes the Crown Dependencies might have made their Registers of Beneficial Ownership of Companies public by the end of this year, or into next year.”

The Deputy asked whether the Chief Minister would

“advise what discussions he has had”

and what steps were being taken to put in place the good work that the Minister has mentioned. The following answer came back:

“The U.K. Government accepts, and has accepted in conversations with us, that our approach meets the policy aims that they are trying to meet and international bodies, standard setters and reviewers, have acknowledged that our approach is a leading approach and is superior to some other approaches taken.”

The answer is quite long, and I will bore people if I read it all out, but in essence it was, “We’re doing enough, and we’ve been told that it’s fine.” That is quite scandalous. A supplementary question was also asked. The Chief Minister of Jersey has said, “We’re doing what we’re doing, and it’s enough.” That does not go far enough. As long as such countries can get away with that, they will do that. There is a race to the bottom. They are all saying, “We don’t have to do it; no one else is doing it.”

As I am sure the Minister knows, Orders in Council have been made over the years in relation to different things. One was made in 1991 to abolish capital punishment for the crime of murder in the Caribbean territories of Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands. In 2009, the UK Government suspended the ministerial Government and the House of Assembly of the Turks and Caicos Islands. The Government basically went in to run the thing: direct rule from London was imposed, despite opposition and criticism. There is a longer list of examples. That has been done before. It seems from the Chief Minister’s answer that Jersey thinks it can get away with it. Could we perhaps set a date of, say, 2020 and say that if it has not published entirely public registers of beneficial ownership by then, we will presume that all money coming through is dirty, or something like that? That may concentrate minds.

I could go on and on about the new clause, but I was told to be brief this afternoon, so I will end there for now. I am curious to hear the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. I meant and/or the overseas territories. The full house will, hopefully by next year, have those registers in place with automatic sharing enabled for our law enforcement agencies, and vice versa—should someone choose to use our country to hide tax from those other countries, their law enforcement agencies will be able to have it.

What I notice about all this is that the world is changing. Transparency is in the ascendancy, secrecy is not. Whether these places are overseas territories or other countries that are nothing to do with the United Kingdom, it is not secrecy that makes them competitive or attractive, but the tax rates and surrounding regulations. That is generational change. Yes, there will be people who wish to hide their wealth for all the wrong reasons, but we are now in a position where our agencies and bodies of law and order will be able to access those areas. They will not have to rely on leaks or third-hand information.

I would not be surprised if, in five or 10 years, we are talking about entirely different countries around the world, maybe even countries that we might think would not be harder to access, but actually are. Those countries might have a more developed legal system and a more protective privacy system that makes it harder for our forces of law and order to get hold of data. I certainly think that these places have come 90% of the way, and we should see whether that works for us. We all have the intention and the United Kingdom is leading by example.

The new clause is a very strong measure. We should not impose our will on the overseas territories and Crown dependencies when they have come so far. Irrespective of the point raised by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton about their attitude and about whether they were pushed or forced, they were not pushed there by a gunboat. It is important to recognise that we have got where we have through cajoling, working together and peer group pressure, which, after all, makes a real difference. Therefore, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.

[Dr Huq]

It is not good enough to say that we just have to pat ourselves on the back and that everything is fine. I am a bit disappointed with the Minister for trotting out that thing about 13 years of Labour. What did Labour do? We passed the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which the Bill amends; the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005; the Bribery Act 2010, section 7 of which we discussed so much this morning; and the Money Laundering Regulations 2007. We created the Serious Organised Crime Agency to ensure a single, intelligence-led response to organised crime.

[Mr Wallace]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Huq]

Let me finish this list. We also passed the Terrorism Act 2000, part 3 of which we have been amending here, as well as part 2 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001—legislation to deal with all these things that we have been talking about, such as terrorist funding. It is a bit low of the Minister to trot out that one about 13 years of Labour. We have been consensual and friendly all the way through this Committee, saying what good legislation this is, so that is a bit tawdry. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:

That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

Clauses 46 to 51 stand part.

[Mr Wallace]

The remaining clauses in part 4 are relatively technical and straightforward. I am tempted to sit down after saying that. They are also similar to other pieces of legislation, so I will not delay us much longer, beyond highlighting a few points.

Clause 46 allows the Secretary of State to make by regulation such provision as they consider necessary in consequence of this Bill. Clause 47 sets out the procedural requirement for making regulations in respect of the devolved Administrations, while clause 49 covers the Bill’s territorial extent. Most of the Bill extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As I stated on Second Reading, we expect the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to seek legislative consent motions from their legislatures; I welcome that, and support them in doing so. I am grateful for our constructive and ongoing engagement with the devolved Administrations.

As this brings us to the end of the Committee, I pay tribute to the Chair and co-Chair for their expeditious and authoritative chairing of our proceedings, and to the many members of the House authorities that have facilitated our consideration of the Bill. They include the Clerks of the Public Bill Office, the Doorkeepers, Hansard and many others.

I am grateful for the constructive approach taken by the Opposition Front Benchers and the Scottish National party in trying to make the best of the Bill. It is not over yet; I understand that there is a long way still to go. I am grateful for the amendments that were tabled, including those from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central. I thank the hon. Members for Dumfries and Galloway, and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, for pointing out the issues to do with Scottish limited partnerships and other concerns; I shall meet them for discussions.

The fact that the Committee stage is to finish early is a testament to the significantly cross-party approach, it says here. We shall, I hope, return to the Floor of the House with the Committee’s strong endorsement of the Bill as well drafted legislation that will make a difference in the fight against organised crime.

Since I took on my present job, I have had to deal with a range of matters, including terrorists and serious organised crime. The bit that scares me the most is the serious and organised crime—the wealth of those individuals, and the impunity with which they operate. I cannot say how helpful the Bill will be, at least in taking away their profit and returning it to the countries or people they have stolen from or, failing that, to the forces of law and order. When I go to sleep at night, it is serious and organised crime that scares me more than anything else in my brief. I hope that we have gone a long way towards at least deterring those engaged in it, and sending a strong message to people who think that such behaviour is permissible.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Minor and Consequential Amendments

Amendments made: 54, in schedule 5, page 140, line 11, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 73, in schedule 5, page 140, line 32, at end insert—

‘( ) In paragraph 5, in sub-paragraph (1), for “this Schedule” substitute “any provision of this Schedule other than Part 2A”.

( ) In that paragraph, omit sub-paragraph (4).”

This amendment is consequential on NC18.

Amendment 74, in schedule 5, page 140, line 33, at end insert—

‘( ) In paragraph 8(1), for “this Schedule” substitute “paragraph 6”.”

This amendment is consequential on NC18.

Amendment 75, in schedule 5, page 140, line 34, at end insert—

‘( ) After paragraph 9 insert—

Restrictions on release

9A Cash is not to be released under any power or duty conferred or imposed by this Schedule (and so is to continue to be detained)—

(a) if an application for its forfeiture under paragraph 6, or for its release under paragraph 9, is made, until any proceedings in pursuance of the application (including any proceedings on appeal) are concluded;

(b) if (in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) proceedings are started against any person for an offence with which the cash is connected, until the proceedings are concluded.”

( ) In paragraph 10, in sub-paragraph (1) after “Schedule,” insert “and the cash is not otherwise forfeited in pursuance of a cash forfeiture notice,”.

( ) In that paragraph, after sub-paragraph (8) insert—

“(8A) If any cash is detained under this Schedule and part only of the cash is forfeited in pursuance of a cash forfeiture notice, this paragraph has effect in relation to the other part.””

This amendment is consequential on NC18.

Amendment 55, in schedule 5, page 141, line 27, leave out “303O(4) and insert “303O(5)”

This amendment corrects an incorrect cross-reference.

Amendment 56, in schedule 5, page 142, line 2, at end insert—

( ) in paragraph (b) (as amended by section 28 of this Act), for “or 298(4)” substitute “, 298(4) or 303O(5)”;” —(Mr Wallace.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 15 and corresponds to the amendment of section 82 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 made by paragraph 18(3)(b) of Schedule 5 to the Bill, as amended by amendment 55.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 46 to 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49

Extent

Amendment made: 52, in clause 49, page 102, line 34, at end insert—

“() section 28(2A);” —(Mr Wallace.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 15.

Clause 49, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50

Commencement

Amendment made: 53, in clause 50, page 103, line 5, after “25” insert “and 28(2A)”—(Mr Wallace.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 15.

Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Dr Huq]

It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, and that of Sir Alan Meale in the earlier sittings. I commend the Minister on the Bill. We can all sleep safely in our beds because of it. I am fortunate that my first Front-Bench service has been with such a nice Minister. I look forward to working constructively with the Government on Report—even if there were some tiny things. However, let us not raise those.

Criminal Finances Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Rupa Huq and Ben Wallace

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 17th November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 17, after “sought” insert—

“(and the property specified may include property located outside the United Kingdom)”

This amendment would ensure that unexplained wealth ordered may be issued for property located outside the UK.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.

In summary, we welcome the Bill. The unexplained wealth orders are a good thing, but amendment 1 is an example of where we think the measures could go a little bit further and be further improved. The amendment would provide that property located outside the UK could be utilised in an unexplained wealth order brought before an individual. It is meant to be a technical rather than political amendment. We are happy to work with the Government, but I think we can all drink to this amendment regardless of political affiliation.

The amendment would facilitate information sharing across different jurisdictions and would provide the United Kingdom with vital information regarding illicit financial activity that has taken place elsewhere across the globe. Reports by both the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Public Accounts Committee hinted at this, and there is even a line in the Government’s action plan for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism finance from April that says we should increase

“the international reach of law enforcement agencies and international information sharing to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing threats.”

Therefore, if an individual provides false and/or misleading information in relation to an unexplained wealth order, they can be prosecuted, but we would widen the scope of the property that comes under such an order so that we can question those who might be resident in the UK regarding their suspected illicit activities regardless of where their wealth is. As we know, people travel and cross borders, so we might not be able to recover wealth from that person. That throws up issues around cross-jurisdictional co-operation, and it is one area where confiscation orders kept hitting a brick wall and coming to grief.

We can glean intelligence on behaviour abroad and share it with other states, which would act as a disincentive to come to the UK to corrupt politically exposed persons who may contaminate our economy with their illicit wealth. If criminals know that on entering the UK, there is a process and our enforcement agencies can compel them to talk about their suspect wealth or property regardless of where they have placed it, they will think twice about coming here. We want to restrict their ability to move. That would send out a powerful message that the UK is not a soft touch when it comes to dodgy financial dealings, which I think we can all agree would be a good thing.

The current threshold at which a UWO can be served under the Bill is £100,000, but what if a criminal or suspected criminal has property of £50,000 here in the UK and has moved £50,000 of property elsewhere? Our enforcement agencies have concluded that, on the balance of probability, both combined are beyond the means of the person in question. I would like to think that the Bill already covers that, but we have tabled this probing amendment to confirm it. We are talking about portable wealth, which extends to jewellery and paintings, which have ultimate portability, because someone could leg it to a foreign country with them. My conclusion is that we would be unable to issue an unexplained wealth order if property is split between two places. I suspect I am right but am happy to be proved wrong.

The scenario I mentioned raises another question. If an individual acquires property of a value that reaches the unexplained wealth order threshold of £100,000 and manages to transfer it out of the UK, it is only after they have done so that our enforcement agencies become aware of it. Does that mean that an unexplained wealth order cannot be issued to that person because the property is now outside the UK? I want some clarification from the Minister on those things. I imagine that the answer is “Yes, we cannot do that”, but if the answer is, “No, we can do it”, it would be even better, because Opposition Members want unexplained wealth orders to be a success.

Finally, the amendment would introduce an element of operational efficacy. If all our enforcement agencies were aware that they were able to factor in stuff that is located outside the UK properly from the beginning of their investigations, it could contribute to our agencies being quicker off the mark. They could sound a warning alarm bell. They would be oriented from the get-go to cast their net as widely as they can to hold criminals to account. That is largely what we seek to do through the amendment.

[The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. As we begin the line-by-line scrutiny, it might be useful if I give the Committee a brief outline of how unexplained wealth orders will work.

In short, an unexplained wealth order is a civil investigatory tool. It is a court order that requires a person to provide information that shows they obtained identified property legitimately. If the person provides information and responds to an unexplained wealth order, the enforcement authority can then decide whether to investigate further, take recovery action under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 or take no further action. If the person does not comply with an unexplained wealth order, either by not responding or not responding fully to the terms of the order, the property identified in the order is presumed to be recoverable under any subsequent civil recovery proceedings. It is important to note that the unexplained wealth order does not in itself lead directly to recovery action. It is designed to be an investigatory power and a precursor to civil recovery action.

An unexplained wealth order is an order made against a person, requiring them to provide information to explain how they obtained the property. It is important for all of us to understand this crucial factor: the unexplained wealth order is made against a person, not against property, and does not itself result in the recovery of that property. That is the vital point in relation to amendment 1.

In the Proceeds of Crime Act, it is clear that, if an order is to be made against a person or a property overseas, it must be explicitly stated on the face of the legislation. For example, section 282A of POCA provides that a civil recovery order can be made against property overseas if there is a connection with the UK. Section 375A of POCA also provides that an evidential request can be made overseas in constructing a case for civil recovery.

The same is already the case with unexplained wealth orders. New section 262A(2)(b) in clause 1 of the Bill provides that the person on whom the order will be served must be named, and it expressly provides that

“the person specified may include a person outside the United Kingdom”.

The unexplained wealth order therefore has global effect. The definition of “property” in the POCA already encompasses all property, whether it is situated at home or abroad. An unexplained wealth order can therefore list any property, wherever it is in the world. The court has an associated power to make an interim freezing order in respect of that property.

Clause 3 inserts a provision into POCA that an enforcement authority can request assistance from an overseas state concerning the freezing of property overseas that is subject to an unexplained wealth order. I therefore assure the hon. Lady that unexplained wealth orders will be effective against property anywhere in the world. Accordingly, I invite her to withdraw her amendment.

[Dr Huq]

I thank the Minister for his reassurance. It was a probing technical amendment to clear up that point, and he has sufficiently clarified it, to my mind. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huq]

If I understood correctly, the Minister said that no primary legislation is required to do what the amendment would do, and that there are already flags and a joined-up process. Are we confident that something like the Magnitsky case, with all the stuff that happened—everyone closing the door to Bill Browder, year upon year—would not happen again with unexplained wealth orders?

[Mr Wallace]

On the Magnitsky case, it would be inappropriate to comment on a case that could be under continuing investigation. The main point is that our law enforcement agencies have operational independence. It is for them to decide the priorities for how they spend their resource and work together. We do an awful lot, without primary legislation, to ensure that they work together. They liaise through regional bodies such as the regional organised crime units, and through the national co-ordinators and everything else.

Our view is that primary legislation is unnecessary because, whether it is through the code of practice, which will be published alongside the Bill, or in the operational day-to-day running of the organisations, joint working is part of their remit and, effectively, their duty. We do not think it is necessary to put anything in the Bill because we fear that that could pervert their priorities and interfere with their operational independence.

[Dr Huq]

I thank the Minister for that explanation. We will leave it where it is. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

Clause 2 acts in tandem with clause 1 in appropriate cases. It provides that the court can also issue an interim freezing order in relation to property that is subject to an unexplained wealth order. The interim freezing order provides that the property cannot be dealt with in any way while subject to that order. There is no point in putting an unexplained wealth order on something if it can immediately be sold, as we might lose the asset. The freezing order can be used to keep it in place.

It is important to split the obtaining of an unexplained wealth order and the freezing of property into two different matters. Although they will be done at the same hearing, they are different decisions with separate considerations. Some colleagues have asked why we are not providing that property must be frozen in every case. Freezing someone’s property is a very invasive measure and may not be necessary in every case. For example, there may be no suspicion that the property will be dissipated—perhaps it is a house that has been owned and occupied by the same person for many years—or that a civil recovery order will be frustrated in some other way.

We would not want unexplained wealth order applications to be rejected solely on the grounds of a technicality related to the freezing decision. It is also important to note that if property is frozen, the court may quite reasonably expect the case to progress at a far quicker pace than if no freezing order was in place. On that last point, I should flag up the fact that, under clause 1, if property is subject to an interim freezing order, the enforcement authority is given a deadline of 60 days to decide the next steps. The freezing order would then be discharged after a further 48 hours.

The expectation is that if an enforcement authority is to go forward with civil recovery action, it will obtain a property freezing order, with many of same provisions and safeguards, to apply immediately to the same property once the interim freezing order is lifted. The property would remain frozen.

An application can be made for the variation or discharge of the freezing order. The court can also provide that property can be released to meet affected persons’ reasonable living expenses, their need to carry on their business and their legal expenses. I hope that what I have said reassures hon. Members that the freezing order provisions are properly circumscribed.

[Dr Huq]

The Minister has given a full and cogent account of why interim freezing orders are being introduced. As a London MP, I know how dirty money in the property market has skewed the entire London property market, meaning that genuine people cannot get a foot on the ladder. It sounds as if sufficient safeguards are being put in place, so we will not stand in the way of the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

External assistance

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

Clause 3 supplements clause 1, on unexplained wealth orders, and clause 2. It provides for a request to be sent to another country to freeze property there that is subject to an unexplained wealth order, which addresses the point that the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton made in the debate on her amendment 1 about going after property abroad.

I will make two points for the benefit of the Committee. First, an unexplained wealth order can apply to property outside of the UK. That reflects the operation of existing civil recovery powers, which can include property overseas if a sufficient connection can be shown with the United Kingdom—for example, where the suspected criminal is British, the criminality is thought to have taken place in this country or there are victims in the UK.

Secondly, there is no international law that expressly provides for the freezing of property in relation to unexplained wealth order-type powers. We will need to liaise closely with other countries in relation what existing international law may underpin such a request, as well as working on obtaining wider recognition of unexplained wealth orders. The clause primarily creates legal certainty that such a request can be made. We also encourage recognition of such requests as part of the wider fight against international crime and corruption.

[Dr Huq]

Once again, we have no problems with any of that, particularly as it allays some of those concerns about overseas property that were anticipated by amendment 1.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Unexplained wealth orders: Scotland

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

The clause brings us for the first time to devolution and separate court systems in the United Kingdom. Clauses 4 to 6 provide for unexplained wealth orders in Scotland on effectively the same terms as clauses 1 to 3 do for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As such, much of what we have discussed relating to the substance of unexplained wealth orders applies equally here.

The reason for separate provisions for Scotland is the different court structure and the separate existing practice and procedure that relates to civil recovery. I assure the Committee that there will be a consistent approach to unexplained wealth orders across the United Kingdom. All the safeguards and other measures will apply in Scotland as they do elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

As we are adding to the criminal law, I will specifically mention the creation of a parallel offence of knowingly or recklessly making a statement that is false or misleading, but I do not think there is anything more to concern the Committee relating to unexplained wealth orders that we have not already discussed.

[Dr Huq]

We entirely support the Government on the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which was introduced by the last Labour Government, provides a suite of powers to be used in connection with a range of investigations, including confiscation and civil recovery. A disclosure order is one of those powerful tools and requires any person having relevant information to answer questions, provide information or produce any document that is relevant to the investigation. Disclosure orders are flexible, practical and efficient. Their use avoids the need to seek multiple orders over the course of an investigation. The changes we are making extend the power to seek disclosure orders in money laundering investigations that were previously explicitly excluded. This exclusion was primarily because of concerns over self-incrimination. However, that protection is maintained in the new provisions, ensuring that individuals who are subject to a money laundering investigation cannot be compelled to provide information that might incriminate them.

Clause 7 also changes the definition of who can apply for a disclosure order, removing the need for a prosecuting body to be responsible for its application. Significantly, this change does not lead to a reduction in the level of seniority of the person who can apply. An appropriate officer can apply for a disclosure order only on the approval of the senior appropriate officer, ensuring that the application process is safeguarded. These changes will be reflected in the statutory code of practice on the investigation tools in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Clause 8 replicates in Scotland the provisions contained in clause 7 for England and Wales that enable an application for disclosure orders in money laundering investigations, providing an essential UK-wide response.

[Dr Huq]

I am convinced by the Minister’s persuasive words that red tape will be removed. We can apply for disclosure orders and yet maintain vital safeguards, so we will support clause 7 and clause 8, which extends the power to Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Power to extend moratorium period

[Mr Wallace]

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 9, page 28, line 34, at end insert “(subject to the restriction mentioned in section 336A(6))”

This amendment clarifies that the 186 day maximum period for extending the moratorium period also applies to a decision of the appeal court in Scotland.

[Mr Wallace]

Clause 9 inserts in part 7 of POCA a scheme for the extension of the suspicious activity report moratorium period beyond 31 days. As the action plan for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist finance sets out, the Government see a more robust law enforcement response as central to tackling money laundering. It might help if I briefly explain how the suspicious activity report regime works.

Where a company in the regulated sector—a bank, an accountancy firm or a legal firm—suspects that they may commit a money laundering offence, they are obliged to submit a suspicious activity report to the National Crime Agency seeking consent to proceed. The National Crime Agency then has a seven-day period to determine whether it is necessary to refuse consent to the company to proceed with the transaction. If consent is refused, the 31-day moratorium period begins. During the moratorium period, law enforcement agencies need to gather the necessary evidence to instigate civil recovery proceedings or a criminal investigation in relation to the money laundering activity. However, money laundering investigations can be multi-layered and complex. Money launderers obfuscate the financial trail to distance proceeds from their criminal source; funds are often moved overseas.

New section 336A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 states that the court may not grant a further extension of the moratorium period if the effect would be to extend the period of more than 186 days in total, beginning with the day after the end of the initial 31-day moratorium period. The amendment makes that clear. Amendment 15 replicates in Scotland what clause 28(2) already does for England and Wales. Amendments 52, 53, and 56 are consequential to that.

The criminal’s property, referred to in POCA as “free property”, which may be in the form of cash, is available for consideration in confiscation unless it is already subject to a forfeiture or deprivation order. When a court considers making a confiscation order under POCA, it must not take into account certain types of property when calculating the amount of the order. This is to ensure fairness to the defendant and prevent the double counting of assets.

Clause 28 amends POCA to clarify the situation in relation to cash that has been seized and is being detained pending the decision of a forfeiture application. Cash that is detained in anticipation of the forfeiture application being made is already excluded, so this is an extension of the existing principle in section 82 of POCA. The amendment extends that to Scotland. We hope to be making an equivalent amendment in respect of Northern Ireland in due course—we are awaiting their formal agreement.

Amendments 50 and 51 will correct an error in clauses 37 and 38, which incorrectly refer to England when they should refer to England and Wales. That is merely to ensure that the text of the Bill reflects the intent of the policy, which is for the measure to extend to England and Wales. Amendment 55 will correct another typographical error.

[Dr Huq]

It sounds as if the amendments are tidying up some sloppy mistakes. On the whole, however, I know that the SARs extension to the moratorium period was very much welcomed by the witnesses we heard from. I have seen that some law firms do not like the policy, but I think it is a good idea. The previous period of 31 days was not long enough. Does the Minister have an inkling of how many times the maximum would be used—I think it is 200 days?

[Mr Wallace]

It is 186 days.

[Dr Huq]

It is something like 186 days plus the 30 days, so if we add it all together it is more than 210. It gets stretched out a lot. Is that likely to be used very sparingly? There are people on the other side who think it is too long.

[Mr Wallace]

The timescale is really just a reflection of what the investigatory agencies have said to us: that some of these cases are very complex. Some of the ways in which people hide their wealth—they sometimes freeze it themselves—and who they are mean that the process will take time. We want to ensure that our agencies have time to investigate, rather than being under the sort of pressure where effectively they run out of time. Those people exploit that. That is the reason for the longer period. Hopefully it will not be used, but the very fact that it is there will give power to the elbow of the agencies trying to do the job.

[Dr Huq]

I thank the Minister for his response. We support the proposal, but we have a concern, which will come up in a new clause at the end, about the architecture of crime fighting. There could be better resource for all the different agencies that will be looking at these issues and particularly for the ELMER IT system. It was envisaged that that system would deal with 20,000 SARs a year, but the figure is 380,000 at the moment and will probably rise even higher after the Bill is passed. That does not relate to the clause, but I wanted to sound a word of caution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huq]

Ditto. We agree and will not stand in the way of the clause.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Wallace]

Clause 9 inserts in part 7 of POCA a scheme for extending the suspicious activity report moratorium period beyond 31 days. As the action plan for anti-money laundering set out, the Government see a more robust law enforcement response as central to tackling money laundering. I have already explained the SARs regime, so we do not need to hear about that again.

As the national risk assessment set out, the UK is vulnerable to abuse by professional enablers from the legal, accountancy and finance sectors. The level of expertise involved can make it difficult to progress a money laundering investigation substantially in only 31 days. That is particularly the case when the law enforcement agency needs to obtain evidence from overseas authorities, which is another reason for an extension for a further length of time—the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton asked why it needed to be so long—or to undertake complex asset-tracing inquiries. Accordingly, the moratorium period may be lifted and funds dissipated before the investigation has progressed sufficiently to determine whether civil or criminal proceedings should be undertaken.

We need to provide law enforcement agencies with an appropriate amount of time to undertake investigations. This clause provides for the extension of the moratorium period by a court for periods of up to 31 days. That can be repeated up to a total of 186 days from the end of the initial 31-day moratorium period. The hon. Lady is better at adding up than me, so she produced the right figure. Providing an extension of the moratorium period enables law enforcement officers to continue investigating particularly complex transactions, such as those involving overseas grand corruption or other serious crime. The clause ensures that proceeds of crime are not dissipated when there is a suspicion that money laundering activity has taken place and when the law enforcement agency has not had the opportunity to complete its inquiries.

The Government recognise that there may be concerns about the length of time for which an individual’s property could be withheld from them. The clause does not allow unlimited extension of the moratorium period. The court must approve the application to extend the moratorium period each time an extension is sought. Law enforcement agencies must demonstrate to the court that it is reasonable in all circumstances for the moratorium period to be extended. They must satisfy the court that the investigation is being carried out diligently and expeditiously and that further time is required to progress the investigation.

An application to extend the moratorium period will be made to the Crown court, which provides a senior level of judicial authorisation. The owner of the property will be able to make representations in person before the court and is provided with the opportunity to appeal the decision to extend the moratorium period. An application may be made only by a senior officer who has a remit to undertake financial investigation. A senior officer is at the police rank of inspector or equivalent.

Money laundering is an enabler of serious and organised crime. The clause will help to stop criminals profiting from their criminal behaviour. It gives our law enforcement agencies the time to progress critical investigations into money laundering where they have genuine reasons for being unable to progress their investigation substantially in 31 days.

[Dr Huq]

The Minister has put it very well. All the witnesses stated that 31 days was not enough. Here we have appropriate checks and balances. A legal procedure is gone through to extend the period; it cannot be open-ended; and appeals procedures are built in. The Minister also praised my maths, which never happens normally—I am a qualitative person usually—so for that reason as well as all the other reasons, we will not stand in the way of the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Sharing of information within the regulated sector

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Wallace]

The clause introduces a new provision into the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. As the action plan for anti-money laundering also set out—it seems to make a regular appearance—the Government see public-private partnership as central to tackling money laundering and terrorist financing. A major part of that approach is to provide support for the effective exchange of information, both within the private sector and between the public and the private sectors, to increase our collective knowledge of threats and vulnerabilities, to help the regulated sector to protect itself and to improve the quality of the UK’s financial intelligence.

Both the private sector and law enforcement agencies hold significant amounts of information that can be of great use to each other. The private sector holds data on financial transactions and related personal data; law enforcement agencies hold intelligence on money laundering and terrorist financing. When those data have been shared, there have been benefits to both sectors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huq]

I described joined-up thinking in my remarks on amendment 2. The Minister has reassured us. I have seen that some people have civil liberties concerns, but he has told us that the sharing of information will be a last resort in extreme cases, and that it will happen largely on a voluntary basis anyway.

The Government action plan on money laundering said that what is needed is a

“collaborative approach to preventing individuals becoming involved in money laundering.”

It discussed different agencies, supervisors and the public and private sectors working together. The clause does all those things, and we support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Further information notices and orders

Amendment made: 10, in clause 11, page 38, leave out line 2.—(Mr Wallace.)

This amendment removes a reference to the Scottish Ministers from the list of persons who may make an application to the sheriff for a further information order under new section 339ZJ of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Wallace]

Clause 11 creates a new power to issue further information orders. In the anti-money laundering action plan the Government set out our commitment to improving the financial intelligence that would be available to both the law enforcement agencies and the private sector. Improving our financial intelligence is essential to allow the identification of the major risks from money laundering, and to identify where resources from both the public and private sectors should be focused.

The action plan also contained a commitment to do more to tackle money laundering internationally, through sharing information and intelligence, and working through international bodies such as the Financial Action Task Force. The suspicious activity reports regime, run by the UK Financial Intelligence Unit at the National Crime Agency, is central to the UK anti-money laundering regime, and to the development of financial intelligence. The regime took more than 380,000 reports in 2014-15 from the regulated sector, including banks, lawyers and accountants.

Clause 11 will allow the UK Financial Intelligence Unit, following the receipt of a suspicious activity report, to request further information from any member of the regulated sector, irrespective of whether that entity raised the SAR.

There are a number of reasons why the UKFIU needs such a power. First, there are occasions where the SAR does not contain all the information necessary to allow the UKFIU to determine whether action, including an investigation, should be undertaken. That is particularly important when determining how scarce resources should be allocated. The intention is to drive up the quality of SARs and to enable improved intelligence analysis for the better identification of risk and threat.

Secondly, the UKFIU can use the power when it needs information in order to develop effective intelligence to identify the major threats from money launderers. That intelligence will be used to inform the work of law enforcement agencies and can be shared with the private sector to help them put in place effective counter-measures to the threats they face from money laundering.

Thirdly, it will allow the UKFIU to seek further information on behalf of a foreign financial intelligence unit to support investigations or intelligence development in that country. That will be subject to the appropriate safeguards, and the UK will benefit from the ability to request equivalent information from foreign financial intelligence units. The provision will also ensure that the UK is compliant with the relevant Financial Action Task Force recommendations ahead of the its evaluation of the UK anti-money laundering regime in 2018.

The clause will allow the National Crime Agency to direct that further information is provided and, if it is not provided, to apply to a court for a further information order to require the person to provide the information requested. We are keen to support appropriate information sharing between financial intelligence units, and we know that FATF and its members want to do more in that area. Incidents such as the attacks in Paris, where financial intelligence was needed to support the investigation, illustrate the need to be able to share such information. However, I would like to be clear that there should be safeguards in place for international information sharing. As with a request driven by the NCA itself, a court order will be required where a regulated entity does not provide information if requested to do so by the NCA. That in itself is an important safeguard. I am, as ever, open to discussing this issue with hon. Members if it is felt that additional safeguards may be appropriate.

On a separate point, I know that the issue of privileged information is of concern to Members, and I want to be clear that the UK Financial Intelligence Unit will not be able to request the provision of privileged information as part of this measure. This is an important safeguard for those who hold such information, and we do not believe that it should be requested under this power.

[Dr Huq]

It appears that the clause enacts some of the recommendations of the action plan for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist finance that the Government issued in April 2016. We will support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Andrew Griffiths.)

Criminal Finances Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Rupa Huq and Ben Wallace

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 17th November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Wallace]

Well, I will not say what we used to call it when I was in the Scottish Parliament. We will call it the SNP. I never say “separatists”, obviously.

Clause 12 will create new powers to seize and forfeit moveable items of property where they are suspected to be the proceeds of crime. Criminals launder the proceeds of their crimes to benefit from their criminal activity and carry it on. They are resourceful in using any mechanism to hold and move illicit funds, and we need to ensure that we are able to respond to that threat. Criminals hold the proceeds of crime in a variety of forms, which act as a store of value and a means through which such value can be transferred. Some, such as cash, gold and diamonds, can be easily moved or concealed. In some cases, these items can be readily sold for cash or dissipated through other means.

We want to take action to prevent criminals from transferring their illicit funds however they choose to do it, and the clause should be seen as part of a framework for seizing such assets, alongside the existing cash seizure provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Act and the new provisions in clause 13 for the freezing and forfeiture of funds held in bank accounts.

The cash seizure and administrative forfeiture procedures in POCA were designed to prevent cash from being moved or dissipated in the time that it would take to seek a restraint order. Cash seizure is widely used, both inland and at the UK border. The existing legislation does not allow law enforcement agencies to take the same action in the case of other highly mobile stores of value. Evidence suggests that those items are being used to move value both domestically and across international borders.

The clause will give law enforcement agencies new powers to seize and forfeit certain listed items, such as precious metals and stones, where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that those items are the proceeds of crime or are intended for use in unlawful conduct. The clause will strengthen law enforcement agencies’ ability to disrupt criminal funding by preventing value from being transferred and enable the recovery of criminal property.

The Bill sets out the list of items that can be seized by agencies. The list has been drawn from discussions with law enforcement agencies and from reviewing the approach taken by other states. We have set the minimum value level for the seizure of listed items at £1,000, which is the same as for cash. There will be no upper limit, again mirroring the existing cash provisions. We have set no higher limit, as we believe there are potential circumstances where the value of the item is likely to be significant, and law enforcement agencies need the power to seize the item if there is reasonable suspicion that it is the proceeds of crime. There is evidence of that, particularly in relation to works of art being used to store illicit value and then transferred internationally. Some Members might have heard last week that a French impressionist painting was discovered in a mafia house. Should we discover one of those in the United Kingdom, I do not think we would like to cap what we could seize. I want to be clear that we do not intend that this power should be used indiscriminately. That is why the power can be used only in respect of certain listed items and is subject to oversight by a court.

We have also introduced two additional safeguards. First, within six hours of the seizure, a senior officer must review the seizure and authorise the continued detention. Secondly, we are not, in these cases, permitting administrative forfeiture. That procedure is available in the existing cash forfeiture system and allows a law enforcement agency to forfeit cash without obtaining a court order, in circumstances where the owner does not object. Owing to the possibility of greater complexity of the cases, such as property being jointly owned and difficult to sever, administrative forfeiture is not appropriate. We want to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to seize such items. At present, there is a short list, but we intend that it will be amended over time to reflect changes in criminal behaviour.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Amendment 58 looks quite attractive. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway and I served together on the Select Committee on Justice and went to America. I was quite tempted by his amendment, but I am now reassured by the Minister that Government new clause 10 addresses those concerns. It is added to the list for the ever longer meeting they will have.

[Mr Wallace]

You can come along.

[Dr Huq]

Can I come too? Okay. One point occurs to me—to dispel any suspicions of HMRC regulating the art market, how will those paintings be valued? I imagine it is the best of three, with experts, but I wonder how that will be enforced.

[Mr Wallace]

I am not an art historian or expert. We would probably get Philip Mould from the television to come along. In reality, like with everything else, there is probably a proper valuation process held and items are disposed of that way. If they wanted my services, I would be useless.

[The Chair]

Order. To help the hon. Lady, I think she will find that, in the evidence produced on Tuesday, one of the witnesses from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs said that they recovered assets and then called in experts who valued them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

The clause introduces a new provision into the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Criminals need to launder the proceeds of their crimes to carry on their criminal activity. As I outlined on clause 12, we need to ensure that we are able to respond to that threat.

POCA already contains provisions for the seizure of cash, but we do not have an equivalent power to take quick and effective action against funds held in bank accounts, and criminals know that. Given the use made by criminals of the banking system, we need to plug that gap. At present, it is difficult for law enforcement agencies to take action against many such accounts because their values are below the limits for civil recovery. The clause will allow the police or the National Crime Agency to seek the freezing and forfeiture of those funds.

The clause will give law enforcement agencies new powers to freeze and forfeit funds held in bank and building society accounts. The measure will have two significant effects. First, it will be easier and quicker for law enforcement agencies to seize the illicit funds held by criminals who abuse the banking system to store and transfer the proceeds of their crime. Secondly, it will also make it clear to criminals that we can take immediate and effective action against their abuse of the financial system.

The provisions we are putting in place will support the forfeiture of funds in bank accounts that have been suspended by the banks when they have serious concerns regarding the use of the accounts. The banks welcome the certainty that will bring. The provision will of course be accompanied by appropriate safeguards. An account cannot be frozen unless there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the funds in it are the proceeds of crime or will be used to fund criminal activity. The freezing of an account will be overseen by a court, which will be able to make an exclusion to allow the account to be used to support a person’s reasonable living expenses or to continue to run a legitimate business.

Forfeiture can be undertaken administratively by the law enforcement agency exercising the provision in uncontested cases. When the forfeiture application is contested, the matter will be decided by the court. The funds in the account will not be transferred to the law enforcement agency account until the forfeiture order is made. I hope that sufficiently reassures the Committee about the need for the power and how it will be used.

[Dr Huq]

It sounds like there will be sufficient judicial oversight in this space. We know that a lack of bank regulation previously led to some nasty incidents in our history, so we support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Serious Fraud Office

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

Clauses 15 and 16 stand part.

Government amendment 11.

Government new clause 9—Immigration officers.

[Mr Wallace]

We come to chapter 4 of the Bill. This group concerns clauses 14 to 16, schedule 1, amendment 11 and new clause 9, which relate to provisions that grant officers of a number of agencies access to new powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

Clause 14 and schedule 1 amend POCA to grant officers of the Serious Fraud Office direct access to the wide range of powers under POCA without the unnecessary existing step of their having first to be accredited and monitored as accredited financial investigators by the National Crime Agency. We are also granting officers access to the new powers proposed elsewhere in the Bill, including the power to extend the moratorium period under clause 9 and the new seizure and forfeiture powers in clauses 12 and 13.

It is, of course, only right that those using the intrusive powers provided by POCA are trained and monitored to ensure that the powers are not misused. However, officers of the SFO are experienced and well trained in the use of POCA powers and have appropriate oversight arrangements.

Clauses 15 and 16 amend part 5 of POCA to grant the powers for the civil recovery of assets to both HMRC and the Financial Conduct Authority. Expanding the civil recovery powers to HMRC and the FCA will improve both the capability and capacity for civil recovery. It will ensure they have access to the full suite of investigatory powers to support them in their civil recovery investigations. The use of those powers is governed by an existing code of practice, which will be amended. The Bill will also enable the SFO, HMRC and the FCA to apply for unexplained wealth orders. As we have discussed, the civil recovery provisions in POCA are robust and powerful, and giving additional bodies access to those powers will strengthen the UK’s overall response to serious and organised crime.

Clauses 12 and 13 provide for new freezing, seizure and forfeiture powers. At present, the Bill allows the police, the National Crime Agency, the SFO and accredited financial investigators to use those powers. Amendment 11 and new clause 9 will extend the use of those important new powers to immigration officers to support their investigations into immigration offences and to take action against criminal property that is the proceeds of immigration crime, or that is being used to fund further immigration offences. Those officers will also be able to seize suspected criminal property obtained through offences unrelated to immigration if they encounter them during immigration investigations. The amendment will strengthen the UK’s ability to tackle money laundering and will allow for the seizure of more criminal assets.

[Dr Huq]

We will support the clause. However, the amendment will lead to an increased workload for agencies such as the SFO and others. Our new clause will be debated later, but we would like an assurance that the blockbuster funding model that they currently operate, which seems to momentarily splash cash, will be replaced with some sort of consistent funding model, because their workload is going to increase and the investigation time in the courts is increasing. That is my only caveat.

[Mr Wallace]

In response to the hon. Lady, some of the measures in the Bill actually make their jobs easier. Although it might give them more people to catch, the fact that they are going to have disclosure orders and that they will be able to use things such as unexplained wealth orders as an investigatory measure, and the fact that we are going to improve the subject access request data sharing regime, so that the private sector produces more quality referrals rather than just a blurb of quality, will hopefully make their jobs easier when it comes to an investigation. In one sense, all of those barriers that they have to get through at the moment will be removed, which, hopefully, will make them more productive.

I recognise the hon. Lady’s point about the funding of the SFO and other agencies. Under the comprehensive spending review and the SDSR, we found quite a lot. SFO officers are already doing this work. It is here to be—[Interruption.] My writing is appalling. One of the reasons we want to remove their need be accredited financial investigators is that that is another hurdle that will get in their way and make them less productive, so we have removed some of those issues.

[Dr Huq]

It is the NCA as well. Both of those big reports from the Home Affairs Committee and the Public Accounts Committee said that there should be more consistent funding, but I am not going to let that niggle get in the way right now because we have a whole clause on that coming at the end.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clauses 15 and 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Search and seizure warrants: assault and obstruction offences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Wallace]

This clause, and those that follow, fill a gap in the general law relating to those who conduct investigations of being placed in danger of being assaulted or obstructed. It is a general offence to assault another person, but in addition to that, police officers and HMRC officers are protected by specific offences that relate to the obstruction or assault of those officers in the course of their duties.

There are two very good reasons for specific offences. Those officers, by the very nature of their actions and work, face a much higher danger and likelihood of being assaulted. For example, they often enter the residences of serious criminals. I am sure the Committee sees that that is a wholly different scenario from what is envisaged in the general offence of assault. We, as law-abiding citizens, are not actively placing ourselves in situations that put us in danger.

Although we are unaware of any prosecutions relating to the assault or obstruction of police officers or others while exercising powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act, there is wide recognition that it is an important safeguard. It is a gap in the law that under POCA, investigators of certain agencies are put in situations where they could be assaulted or obstructed, and yet there are no connected offences. Section 453A of POCA has already created assault and obstruction offences for civilian accredited financial investigators operating under the Act. The clause provides that those who can execute search and seizure warrants in civil recovery investigations have a similar protection.

[Dr Huq]

We have had two good debates on the Floor of the House recently about the assault of police officers. These are very good provisions, and we are happy to support them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Assault and obstruction offence in relation to SFO officers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Wallace]

The clause addresses a gap in the law relating to those who conduct investigations being placed in danger of being assaulted or obstructed. Much of what I said in relation to clause 17 also applies here. We are extending powers to SFO officers elsewhere in the Bill—in clause 14 and schedule 1, as well as clauses 12 and 13. In doing so, we place them in the position of being vulnerable to being assaulted or at least obstructed.

Unlike the police, HMRC officers and others, there is no specific offence that relates to SFO officers who are assaulted or obstructed in the course of their duties in general. The Bill therefore creates one to support the more general provisions of extending powers to the SFO. SFO officers currently access the powers in POCA as accredited financial investigators, and there are offences of assault and obstruction that relate to them. As accredited financial investigators, they are therefore protected by the offences in section 453A. The clause will simply copy the same approach, to reflect the fact that they will be able to operate the powers in their own right.

[Dr Huq]

This appears to us an entirely logical extension of the anti-assault powers. I know that taxmen are not always the most popular people, but I think MPs and used car salesmen are the most unpopular in the rankings of professions. We thoroughly support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Obstruction offence in relation to immigration officers

Amendment made: 11, in clause 19, page 72, line 36, at end insert—

“( ) section 303C as so applied (powers to search for a listed asset);

( ) section 303J as so applied (powers to seize property);

() section 303K as so applied (powers to detain seized property);”—(Mr Wallace.)

This amendment is consequential on NC9.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Wallace]

This clause is similar to clauses 17 and 18. It addresses the need for an offence of obstruction, in this case to apply to immigration officers. Much of what I have already said in relation to such an offence also applies here. Under section 21(1)(g) of the Immigration Act 1971, a person commits an offence if they obstruct an immigration officer who is lawfully acting in accordance with their powers under that Act. That obstruction offence does not apply to the exercise of powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

As immigration officers now regularly use their powers under POCA—in particular since the extension of those powers in the Crime and Courts Act 2013—it is consistent for them to have a related obstruction offence. The clause amends POCA to create such an offence. Immigration officers are already covered by a general assault offence under section 22 of the UK Borders Act 2007, so no further provision is required in relation to assault. We are also amending immigration officers’ power of arrest without warrant to include this new offence.

[Dr Huq]

Again, Her Majesty’s Opposition entirely support this clause in relation to obstruction of immigration officers in the line of duty.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

External requests, orders and investigations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Wallace]

Clause 20 makes a technical change, consequential to clause 18. Under section 444 of POCA, an Order in Council can be made to set out the procedure for providing assistance to other countries in freezing and confiscating property in the UK that is related to their cases. The Order in Council can create provisions that correspond to those available in our own domestic cases. The clause ensures that any offence created relating to the assault or obstruction of an SFO officer mirrors the one that we are creating domestically under clause 18. I hope the clause stands part of the Bill.

[Dr Huq]

Again, we have heard that these criminals often do not respect borders and maps, so we support the move to extend the provisions to external requests.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Seized money: England and Wales

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

Amendments 12, 13 and 14 are a logical extension of powers that are already within POCA. Section 67 of POCA provides the magistrates court with a power in relation to money seized by the police or HMRC under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that has to be paid into a bank or building society account. The court can order that money be paid to the court in satisfaction of a confiscation order. The money still belongs to the criminal. Therefore, section 67 avoids the ridiculous scenario of money being paid back into the criminal bank account when there is an outstanding confiscation order to pay. The amendments do not break new ground, but extend the established logic of section 67. When the police have possession of a criminal’s money, they should be able to transfer that across in the payment of a confiscation order, rather than return it to the criminal.

The amendments do three things. First, section 67 currently applies only to police and HMRC officers. The amendments effectively extend the powers to law enforcement officers who have the power to seize money, including immigration officers and SFO investigators. Secondly, the provision will now apply to money that has been seized under any power relating to a criminal investigation or proceeding, or under the investigatory powers in POCA. Instead of being limited to money seized under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, this removes an unnecessary restriction. Many other powers of seizure should come from this provision’s scope, such as those in the Immigration Act 2016.

Thirdly, section 67 currently applies only to money that has been paid into a bank or building society account. That is another false limitation. For example, if money has evidential value it will not be paid into an account. It may be required at a trial as evidence that it is contaminated with a trace of drugs or explosives. It would be odd that a convicted drug trafficker with an outstanding confiscation order has his money returned by the police purely because that money was used as evidence in his trial, and not paid into his bank account.

There was no provision equivalent to section 67 in Scotland. Section 67 applied in England and Wales, and was similar to section 215 for Northern Ireland. I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 23, which introduces a similar power in Scotland. In constructing clause 23, we have been made to rethink the scope of section 67. We have come to the conclusion that it should be extended in the ways I have just described. We are also looking into whether to make similar amendments to the powers being introduced in Scotland and to the existing powers in Northern Ireland, and I will update colleagues in due course. I am sure the Committee will agree that this is an entirely sensible extension of the existing power to support the enforcement of confiscation orders.

[Dr Huq]

We do not oppose the amendment.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Amendments made: 13, in clause 21, page 73, line 18, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“( ) For subsection (8) substitute—

(8) In this section—

“appropriate person” means—

(a) in a case where the money is held in an account maintained with a bank or building society, the bank or building society;

(b) in any other case, the person on whose authority the money is detained;

“bank” means an authorised deposit taker, other than a building society, that has its head office or a branch in the United Kingdom;

“building society” has the same meaning as in the Building Societies Act 1986;

“relevant seizure power” means, subject to subsection (9), a power to seize money conferred by or by virtue of—

(a) a warrant granted under any enactment or rule of law, or

(b) any enactment, or rule of law, under which the authority of a warrant is not required.

(9) A power to seize money conferred by Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is not a “relevant seizure power” for the purposes of this section.”

This amendment defines terms used in amendment 12 and makes a consequential change to the Bill.

Amendment 14, in clause 21, page 73, line 23, leave out “subsection (8)(a)” and insert—

“the definition of “bank” in subsection (8)”.—(Mr Wallace.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 13.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Wallace]

The clause is a technical amendment to POCA, specifically to update references to the definition of “bank” in three sections. The current reference in POCA is to the Banking Act 1987, which was repealed in December 2001, before POCA was commenced. The reason for its repeal was to remove bank regulation from the Bank of England, and to make it independent. Although no universal definition of a bank was given in the Banking Act, and nor is there any such definition in the subsequent legislative changes, a bank is defined by its activity as a deposit taking institution.

The only references in POCA affected by the change are those in three sections: section 67, section 215, and paragraph 6 of schedule 3. In addition, the definition will apply for the purpose of the new powers in the Bill to freeze and forfeit funds in a bank account.

Section 67 provides that where a confiscation order is made against a person, and moneys belonging to that person are held in a bank or building society account maintained by the police or HMRC, those institutions can be ordered to pay those moneys to the court. Section 215 makes equivalent provisions for Northern Ireland, and paragraph 6 of schedule 3 to POCA refers specifically to a Scottish provision relating to the deposit of certain moneys by an administrator into an “appropriate bank or institution”.

These changes replicate, as much as possible, the previous provisions, while recognising that the legislation in the area has now changed. I hope the clause will stand part of the Bill.

[Dr Huq]

Once again, I am proud that the Proceeds of Crime Act was a Labour Act that we pushed through when we were in government. It is now being updated to reflect contemporary circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Seized money: Northern Ireland

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I am touched by the love of Scotland expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover—although his constituency is closer to France than Scotland. I might be able to help him on some of his technical questions.

My hon. Friend’s first question was about why the miscellaneous provisions relate to Scotland, how they are processed and why they are different. Sections 67 and 215 of the 2002 Act provide that a magistrates court can require a bank or building society to pay a sum of up to £5,000 if it fails to comply with an order. However, there is no precedent for such a provision in Scottish law. Also, the equivalent orders in Scotland will apply to law enforcement authorities, as well as to banks and building societies. It was therefore considered more appropriate for any, hopefully rare, wilful non-compliance with an order in Scotland to be dealt with as contempt of court.

Clause 24 addresses recovery orders relating to heritable property. Although it is Scottish Ministers, as the enforcement authority, who apply for a recovery order, once granted it is for the trustee for civil recovery to recover possession of any heritable property to which the recovery order applies. That is because the effect of a recovery order is to vest the property in the trustee for civil recovery. Under existing law, however, a trustee for civil recovery is unable to seek recovery of possessions directly in the Court of Session so must raise a separate action in a lower court, namely the appropriate sheriff court. That can lead to defenders rehashing arguments that were unsuccessful before the Court of Session and incurring costs for those days, which ultimately compromises the amount recovered. Such delays also permit those involved in criminality to continue occupying a property despite the Court of Session having determined that the property was obtained through unlawful conduct and should therefore be recovered.

My hon. Friend is rightly concerned about sitting tenants whose house is owned by a crook and who suddenly find that it is forfeited or frozen. The primary policy obligation is the effective recovery of the proceeds of crime, which is generally best served by recovering the heritable property concerned and selling it so that proceeds from the sale can be added to the public purse. A primary function of the trustee for civil recovery is to realise the value of the property for the benefit of the enforcement authority, which, in Scotland, is the Scottish Ministers. It was never intended that the trustee should take on the functions of a landlord in relation to any sitting tenants.

However, we are considering introducing amendments to other legislation in consequence of the clause, as was well pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, with a view to ensuring that any legitimate tenant receives fair notice that a recovery order is being sought in respect of the property concerned and that, if granted, they will have to vacate the property within a certain period of time, and that adequate support is put in place to safeguard against homelessness.

Let me move on to the fourth point, relating to the definition of “bank”—I remember this being a particularly gripping part of the Bill when I was reviewing the legislation. The Banking Act 1987 provided a definition of a bank; these amendments simply update the definition to ensure that it is current, as the Banking Act has been repealed.

[Dr Huq]

I am reassured to hear that tenants’ rights, which are often under-regulated in this country, will be dealt with in the legislation.

I have a question about clause 26, which is on accredited financial investigators. We have had those in this country since 2009. Even though I do not have the exact figures—my iPad is not getting wi-fi—there is evidence that we have not hung on to all of them. People have been trained as specialist investigators out of the public purse. We live in an age where we should justify every pound of public money, and we seem to have lost those people to the private sector. A lot of them have been poached.

[Dr Huq]

It was a powerful point. As I was going to say if the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to finish the sentence I had embarked on, this issue will be addressed at the end in one of our new clauses. Perhaps we could build in some way of, if not exactly giving them golden handcuffs, then retaining them or even getting the cost of the training repaid, whatever that is. We see the same happening across other sectors. We hear of junior doctors being lost to Australia. It would be a tragedy if we trained these people up and then off they went, poached by the private sector. We have heard of examples where they have gone to the gambling industry, which my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East has experience of in her role on the all-party group on fixed odds betting terminals. I flag that issue up now, but we will come back to it later in a new clause.

[Mr Wallace]

I have heard the hon. Lady’s sentiment. We will discuss the new clause later. I understand the point that we invest in people and we as the taxpayer should extract that investment back. We will no doubt discuss that further.

On the final concern raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover about the governance of accredited financial investigators, the use of the power in the clause is covered by a code of practice that will be amended. That mirrors the application processes elsewhere in POCA whereby civilians authorise applications. I am happy to provide those codes of practice for my hon. Friend to look at.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 23 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Confiscation orders and civil recovery: minor amendments

Amendment made: 15, in clause 28, page 78, line 33, at end insert—

‘(2A) In section 148 (free property: Scotland), in subsection (3)(b) for “or 297D” substitute “, 297D or 298(4)”.” —(Mr Wallace.)

Clause 28(2) amends section 82 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which determines what constitutes “free property” in relation to confiscation proceedings in England and Wales, by providing that property detained under section 298(4) of the 2002 Act is not free property. This amendment provides for a corresponding change to be made to section 148, which applies in the case of confiscation proceedings in Scotland.

Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Disclosure orders

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Wallace]

We now move on to part 2 of the Bill, relating to terrorist property. In our discussions so far we have focused on clauses that are about ensuring we take the profit out of serious and organised criminality. Terrorism finance is different. Individuals who raise and move funds for the purpose of terrorism are not concerned with profit, but with causing the loss of life. It is essential that the tools available for terrorist finance investigations and the powers available to seize terrorist cash and property are as comprehensive as those available for dealing with other financial crime or, in some cases, more robust. Part 2 of the Bill is included for that purpose.

The relevant clauses therefore largely reflect the existing provisions relating to financial crime, but have been adapted as needed to respond to what is a different type of threat. As I explained earlier, disclosure orders are available for confiscations, civil recovery and exploitation proceeds investigations. Clause 29 and schedule 2, which it introduces, are very similar to clauses 7 and 8, and extend disclosure orders to money laundering investigations, but do so for terrorist finance investigations. The clause will make disclosure orders available for terrorist finance investigations, which will give law enforcement agencies the means to obtain information that is significant for investigating suspected terrorist finance offences or for identifying terrorist property.

The clause makes it possible for the police to apply to the court for an order to compel an individual to answer questions, to provide information or to produce documentation that is assessed to be relevant to progressing a terrorist finance investigation. It will be an offence to fail to comply with such an order without reasonable excuse, and to make a false or misleading statement in response to such an order. Either offence is punishable by a possible term of imprisonment of up to two years.

This is a robust measure, which is appropriate when we consider the type of threat with which we are concerned. However, it will operate with a number of safeguards: the application for an order must be made by a senior police officer, at least a superintendent, or authorised by such an officer; and the court must be satisfied that the information sought will be of substantial value, and that it is in the public interest for it to be provided, before making an order.

The action plan for money laundering and counter-terrorism finance, to which I have referred on numerous occasions, identified the need for a more robust law enforcement response to tackle money laundering and terrorist finance in all its forms. The measure is part of that response.

[Dr Huq]

The Minister is absolutely correct that the Government’s action plan of April 2016 identified this as a crucial area in need of examination. Terrorism is the threat of our modern age, along with climate change, so we go along with the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Disclosure orders

[Mr Wallace]

I beg to move amendment 16 in schedule 2, page 109, line 9, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

This amendment, and amendments 18, 20, 21 to 25, 27 to 49 and 54, are consequential on amendment 26.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 31 stand part.

[Mr Wallace]

Collaboration between law enforcement and the private sector is incredibly important for countering terrorism, as it is for combating serious and organised crime. The importance of such close collaboration will be a key theme that features prominently in the forthcoming revised Contest counter-terrorism strategy.

Clauses 30 and 31 mirror the provisions in clauses 10 and 11, but for terrorist finance investigations.

As I have outlined to the Committee in relation to part 1 of the Bill, the Government are committed to improving public-private partnerships. We must support the regulated sector to come together to share expertise and information to help it protect legitimate businesses from being exploited for criminal or terrorist intent. In some cases, the detailed picture held by the regulated sector might be key to understanding particular threats. Closer working with the regulated sector can only enhance our understanding of terrorism and provide opportunities to protect against it or disrupt it. Clearly, the financial sector in particular can play a vital part in terrorist finance investigations and tracking terrorist property.

Clause 30, like clause 10 on money laundering, will enable firm-to-firm information sharing through a legal gateway, which will provide immunity from civil liability, encouraging the reporting sector to share information to detect and prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. The joint money laundering intelligence taskforce has demonstrated that there is potential for information sharing in relation to terrorist financing to support effective law enforcement action and disrupt threats to our national security. The clause is an important measure that enables us to take forward that agenda. Although obligations to protect customers’ personal data remain important and must be respected, where it is possible to overcome barriers to the effective sharing of information to progress an investigation, the Government will do what we can to allow it.

Clause 31 will allow the National Crime Agency or the police, following receipt of a report under section 21(2)(a) of the Terrorism Act 2000, to request further information from any member of the regulated sector, irrespective of whether that entity raised the original suspicious activity report. It will also allow the National Crime Agency to seek further information on behalf of a foreign authority. Just as in clause 11, in the event that a member of the regulated sector does not comply with a request for more information, the provision will also allow the NCA or the police to obtain a court order to ensure that it is provided.

The two clauses will allow better information flows within the regulated sector and between the regulated sector and law enforcement agencies, generating better intelligence for law enforcement agencies and helping firms better protect themselves. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Dr Huq]

Clauses 30 and 31 revisit the information sharing themes that we have been discussing all day. We thoroughly commend them. They build on another good piece of Labour legislation, the Terrorism Act 2000. Unfortunately, terrorists have become ever more ingenious in the evil schemes that they dream up in the 16 years since, which is why the clauses are necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

Further information notices and orders

Amendments made: 18, in clause 31, page 86, line 1, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 19, in clause 31, page 86, leave out line 3. —(Mr Wallace.)

This amendment removes a reference to the Scottish Ministers from the list of persons who may give a further information notice under new section 22B of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Andrew Griffiths.)

Criminal Finances Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Rupa Huq and Ben Wallace

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 15th November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Huq]

Q What do you think of the £100,000 figure?

Detective Superintendent Harman: It sounds a reasonable figure to me when we are dealing with a higher end, it certainly does, but we operate less in that realm. We are more about the slightly smaller amounts causing a great deal of harm.

[The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)]

I want to clarify the point: the seizure threshold is £1,000 and the unexplained wealth order threshold is £100,000. I did not want members of the Committee to get confused about the two. If we are talking about taking money out of a bank account, it is at the £1,000 level; if we are talking about confiscating assets on an unexplained wealth order, it is £100,000.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huq]

Q This is modelled on section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010. Am I right in thinking that so far under that Act there have been zero prosecutions—[Interruption]—or a very low level of prosecutions, shall we say?

[Mr Wallace]

We are getting there.

[Dr Huq]

That is only from 2010, so it is not an old Act, and again, nobody here is Mystic Meg, but do you have the tools in this legislation to bring about successful prosecutions or are there too many obstacles, such as that the SFO is involved and that behavioural change would be needed, as you said? Do you foresee there being a low or high level of prosecutions when the Bill is enacted?

Simon York: A good result would be that corporates change their behaviour and that there is less facilitation of tax evasion, and consequently, less tax evasion. We certainly have the tools, through a combination of this proposed legislation and our existing capability—HMRC is a very competent and successful law enforcement agency and criminally investigates many people and convicts them successfully every year, so I think we have that capability. Do I think we will have a lot of prosecutions in this area? I hope not, but I think we will be looking for a number to act as part of this deterrent to show that the legislation has teeth and to show that we mean business.

Nick Price: I would just make a quick general observation: all prosecutions are difficult and we operate an adversarial system, which of course we are well used to. This is a really useful piece of potential legislation, with some really useful elements to it. Are we going to see a phalanx of extra prosecutions coming over the horizon? Perhaps not, but there are some really useful aspects of the Bill that we will no doubt deal with shortly.

Mark Thompson: In my experience, it is not inherently a numbers game, in terms of numbers of prosecutions. We have found that the section 7 offence of the Bribery Act is a useful tool for us as prosecutors. It focuses the corporate mind and there has been a large response from the private sector in complying with that. I would be surprised if the tax evasion offence did not have the same implications.

Criminal Finances Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Rupa Huq and Ben Wallace

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 15th November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Huq]

Q Can you think of anything that is not in the Bill that you would have liked to have seen in it? I was kind of thinking sideways—maybe enhanced supervision of the property market or something. I know that is not one for you three directly, but if there is anything you would like to see in the Bill, we are told that the Minister is in listening mode.

[Mr Wallace]

Always.

Anthony Browne: We broadly support this Bill and almost all the provisions in it. The one thing we would like to see changed in the Bill is the threshold for intelligence sharing, which is a point that Ms Delfas made earlier. It would be beneficial and make the regime more effective if you lowered the threshold for intelligence sharing. If there was activity that was just below the formal level of suspicion, so that banks do not deal with it as a suspicious activity report, if they could at that stage share intelligence with other banks like two pieces of a jigsaw, they could find out that something happening in bank A is also happening in bank B.

That could raise it to a suspicious activity and so enhance the intelligence sharing and make it far more useful and effective. We are worried that the way it is prescribed at the moment would actually be a lot less effective than either the Government or the banks want.

[Dr Huq]

Q Do you think that the £100,000 for an unexplained wealth order is about right as the threshold where that kicks in? Would you like to see it higher or lower?

Anthony Browne: I do not have a view on that, but I can get back to you.

Nausicaa Delfas: I do not particularly have a view but, certainly from our experience, the cases of money laundering tend to be of higher value. I do not have a view on the figure as such.

Draft Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) order 2016

Debate between Rupa Huq and Ben Wallace

Wednesday 26th October 2016 General Committees

[Dr Huq]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is why, had he listened, he would have heard me use the caveat that non-sensitive advice with bits redacted could be published. One of the virtues of having an independent reviewer—not a Labour party person—is that it allows a degree of transparency and scrutiny in counter-terrorism legislation that is not otherwise possible in areas that concern national security. That builds public and parliamentary confidence in our laws. When the Government can be transparent, they should be transparent—the previous Prime Minister was always saying that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Therefore, although we support the draft order, I have a couple of questions for the Minister about the effectiveness of TPIMs. The security forces have been using TPIMs on fewer and fewer occasions. Between the first quarter of 2012 and the last quarter of 2013, between eight and 10 individuals were controlled by TPIMs at any one point, whereas three people at most have been controlled by them since 2013. In the last written statement to the House, the Minister revealed that there is now just one individual subject to a TPIM. I wish that I could say that that is a result of the terrorist threat having disappeared or receded, but throughout that time we have all seen the annunciator screens in our offices that say the threat level is severe. We have also seen a new wave of Islamist attacks on the continent. The Minister listed Nice and Brussels; there are loads of them, including Paris. The list goes on.

There is a danger that the security forces are using TPIMs on fewer occasions because they do not find them to be a useful tool for tackling terrorism. The previous independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile, said:

“It is surprising and worrying that we are down to just one T-Pim given the situation appertaining all over Europe. We know that there is a severe risk of a terror attack. I hope that the Government is examining the possibility of increasing the use of T-Pims or toughening them up.”

As we have already heard, TPIMs have already been toughened up in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015—in particular, the security forces can now restrict where an individual resides. In the impact assessment that accompanied that Act, the Government anticipated that their changes to the TPIM regime would lead to an increase in the use of TPIMs. In fact, they estimated that there would be an

“additional five to 15 TPIM cases per year”.

At the time, there were two TPIMs in use; here we are a year later and there is actually one fewer.

[Mr Wallace]

There are six now.

[Dr Huq]

Are there six at the moment, not one? [Interruption.]